your brother the order of the caesar order that was offered and approved by the court involving a matter in which injunctive relief was granted and how that affected both corporate defendants as well as individual defendants are you contesting the district court's finding there's a probability of success on the merits on the trademark infringement claim and i think that for such it would suffer irreparable injury from that of infringement or attacking the injunction itself in this scope we're talking the scope  it seems like years of whiteness of an opening there ten feet wide for anybody to go in and say hey we need something here well to the extent that you know that was provided for us on its surface that looks appealing if your does but when it's put into effect is that hasn't happened what is going enforced we want access to this master craft i didn't want his face i mean it seems to me to give you any any opportunity that you need to come in and say this is just shuts closest down don't let us operate much we can't the problem is the order on its face that was granted was overbroad and went too far into the dock even though you provide this remedy or there's an outlet for special master should have gone to that desk for items such as personal assets personal living expenses having daily expenses in a normal commercial case it is quite acceptable to have a freezing of the assets to enjoin the further use of then approaching material but this sort of went way beyond that not only did it go after individuals and there some evidence in the record as to these being family businesses and relationships with people and so if you could if you if you were just talking about the corporation all of the officers are all these people in the family and then they would be able to do exactly what the court was trying to stop at this point that they would be able to completely get around it so that there was that there was  my clients for example are doing corporate entities operating duly registered state of california they have done all of the corporate formalities that you're supposed to have to have that afforded a limitation of liability second of all found all this either you know stuff that was counterfeit or infringed upon property i mean lots of it and all of these different locations that was all before the court right  not contesting that aspect of the order that it was legitimate for the court to enjoin the use of the items in the garments that they should be seized and they should no longer be sold but you know i know but then their ethnicity to say that just because they have to happen to be a certain ethnicity and they have but they have all of these items in their stores it seems to me that that's you know that's trying to say well therefore you're going after them because they're arming in or because they're lebanese or because they're  but there was evidence before the court that the court was imposing this because these items were found in their stores again as the result would have been the same whether they were irish or whatever you're asking us to jump to the conclusion that this is all some kind of biased activity on the part of the court because there are lebanese not exactly what the unfortunate problem is in the court was given inadequate evidence on that fact and was misled by the applicant by the plaintiff but you're not contesting that disconnect was that some of it because there were there was some indication of transactions and money going back ten eleven on or something so i mean and some people happen to be lebanese and it was going back there were some people are related and related people a lot of time share their ethnicity but kind of level and race and it's pretty serious well it's been an argument either as overtly or an underlying theme of the appaloosa argument that was front and center of their arguments the one individual to spawn specific with your comment because obviously when you're a water only one individual had a claim to that that individual is responsible for his actions but that wasn't used to paint everyone with the same brush there were no facts to connect i wanted to go to the balance of these defendants and that's what goes for over a breath argument that on that basis it was a superficial look not going to the objections not looking to the substance of what the individual merit for their attention and that's where the court in our view may never again it's the overgrowth of the order it it's not freezing a specific ass it's all assets for example as of this day all the little late on or an order that came in under seal without any prior notice all darkness were literally removed from my client's business we're approaching ten months nine months since that time those documents have still not been returned to this day they literally took everything we do not know we have not had access to them they have been under copying copy of the court's order i apologize that we did not augmented the record to include that number one sixteenth your honor so i assume that somebody on the basis of that ask for a an alteration of the injunction not at this point your honor because of the pending appeal we want to pursue on the merits of the appeal what you just told me is in that irrelevant the dismiss conspiracy amongst the seventy one defendants which is what you're telling us that was a subsequent development and you're telling us that you didn't take advantage of the subsequent development to go in and all of the injunction or the master at this honor we have not filed a subsequent motion with the court relative to the court's subsequent rulings are pertaining to the criminal conspiracy allegations that's your choice well we're here we want to let the court know th courts take a look at this whole idea and the court the court seems extremely sensitive to the very issues that you're bringing to our attention the court even quotes yeah idea that this is a terrifying thing the pre judgment seizing of assets of coach judgment and his wherever it was so therefore that's why i'm presenting i'm denying the attempt to seize all cash assets and i'm putting the special master in place and any problems you've got go to the special master and they'll be resolved that seems to me to eliminate the problems that you're bringing to our attention now if in fact the special master is not doing what the special masters boast of you go back to the court you say time out first of all you got rid of the rico so there's no more conspiracy and secondly the guy's not doing what you said he should be doing in order to protect us from all the problems that we told we were going to have your honor i am not disagreeing with your honor but the very order of the county by the lower court relative to what the special master is involved in in this case it is used to clue private accounting of the individuals by their their racial and ethnic backgrounds which is one of the sort of what the united states did back in world war two with the japanese retention camps because because of your remarks the characteristics of the because he was given ten thousand dollars the rant on his doors in sixty eight thousand dollars a month in the salary and utilities and overhead general overhead of the business approaches something like five hundred thousand dollars a month and the implementation is a question of a special master living and not living up to the special master's orders well i think i think that that is to require each of the  but i don't i don't know let me just backtrack from moment and offer a reason not an excuse i had twelve days to review this record and prepare my brief because of other things beyond my control all x minus and we go over there and the special masters not allow is the function you clearly want us to be able to function are happening to all the special master you get with it well that was problem with the scope of the instruction that's the problem with the terms of this is found with their fingers in the trademark cookie jar they did and they did and that's why you know the most of them are not contesting the propriety of the injunction it's only the scope of the asset freeze and i think that's to the extent that there is an appeal was made on the district court level it's my understanding and if i'm wrong i apologize but it's my understanding that the  it but that ten that extra money is only for manal it is not for all of the other incident on living expenses and in the real world having to go to the special master every single month and happening at th looking at what is who are the parties what is what are the damages that are being sought in this case and i think that the the authority for the court the inherent is is that are you asking for more than half of that because they're saying that would protect you because you already have all the property well in actuality no because one of the underlying claims is constructive trust and if you ha give them any substance the court has two issues of trees in some manner or else there is no constructive trust it's just it's a right without a true grammy now one of the other frankly there is no evidence of hardship to any defendant before this court that it can consider pounds over one hundred thousand dollars and that was done quite early on in the case and i cannot comment on what counsel has attempted to do or not do but records have been actually scanned and put on a cd and those part of the album for counsel at their request i believe twenty five dollars charge to look at the scan documents if they disarm had not sold have not marketed have not done anything with these offending good they had a facility downtown los angeles that was and a fox for one customer going to mexico there for us and the argument that the evidence we dr relief action the court concluded upon of the evidence to support and the evidence opposing that was the court's finding at that time and i don't want the court had the impression that we're sitting at we are not at all that was over objection that the court made that f to the reebok case here there was that it's a record that these products at least it cost know about were two to three styles of over two hundred styles one to two percent of all of the goods there was no evidence presented that these supposed products regarding garments are ill gotten gains constituted a majority of our products as a matter of fact the evidence was opposite to that it was in a minority of dollars that we had  literally for every dollar that goes in and out of these companies without being expended with a ten thousand dollar limitation for cash items every month so every dollar that there hasn't been a total asset for well no it's not a freeze in the sense that you have to turn but there was and different context yes you keep calling it a total asset freeze and i see the court saying we're denying that your work their request to seize castors so it's not a total ass it's a restriction you're right i mean being in articulate on that aspect of it page thirty seven one through five where the court specifically states and i'd like to court to keep in mind this is a civil action not a criminal action any longer in terms of the allegations that are still in honor it does but i think that the that as i said the lynch pen of the court's order relative to the accounting was because of the fear of the potential just a patient of assets of these defendants it was based on the finding