consistent with the public policy of the united states as compared to in forcing the judge and finally there's the issue of the attorneys fees that the trustee claims are due or due to let me just walk through the most important factual illegals learn that there were three classes of securities that they were holding one class was what's called book shares which is the electronic and hold shares there was currency in other certificate shares each one of them or owned separately there were total three hundred over three hundred ninety accounts involving seventeen people with that information it was learned of the proceeding commenced with an application on december second two thousand thirteen to begin the turnover process in that regard on december eleventh two thousand and thirteen there was an order entered which contemplated a notice protocol and that those protocol becomes very fundamental in understanding how the rights of all parties were affected the reason i say that is because there are four possibilities of what happens with respect to the these assets in question the first possibility is that these seventy individual accounts are recognised and these account holders theoretically might have only divot objection to what occurred with their count so in that regard each of the seventy count holders were given actual notice by letters to their last known address in announced to the court below that we would not be seeking those monies so with respect to the other sixty seven council they have essentially abandoned their interest or recognise the ri to the plaintiffs to satisfy their judgment they the contention i guess is that it should remain in limbo for ever and at some point it's cheat to the state massachusetts because nobody has anything to the floods which is a nonsensical conclusion so in that context what occurred with those protocols and then moving forward the time for objections expired on january thirty first two thousand and fourteen as i mentioned a moment ago  there was only one objection but most importantly the form of the protocol was the form suggested by computershare that say they submit to the protocol that they wanted or protect their interest as the custodian in their answer which collect on this judgement at that point there's only time when the time to object expired there was a motion on february third two thousand and fourteen to finally complete the turnover and on february get to the point of why since only two of the three were acted upon its final that's right because well the point and the point is this that ended a post judgment proceed obviously you have to look at of their done their over they have separate claims if separate like they're not tied to anything they're not to the judgment killed was done their default the question then becomes there was a separate question we agree on the application and what i'm saying to you in the real world application when you're forcing a judge if i'm going after one set of assets which have no relationship to another set of assets different owners they should be treated so why didn't you bring it with the only point i'm making there is what's the answer to that well the answer is that if we are say that in a post judgment collection proceeding these same set of rules now apply because i think that fifty four that with something outside the united states is not the public policy of the united states at all period so we have to basically search for public policy someplace else so now we go we go to almost embarrassing to deal with cases that are this arcane is sometimes a pretty good and in this case of the issue that was essentially what is the effect of legislation  goodes opposing efforts to collect but they said don't let it happen and trio was a correct reaction to that senator harkin's comment said that this can't be the case that's not what we want to do we want to make sure the victims of terrorism have a direct path of the of the force but just because frozen assets but the frozen assets in question with a nod were indisputably the frozen assets in let's take this case cuba where as the issue laws i don't find that it is common but what are you have in mind was that it is indisputable that the property against which the judgment should be satisfied is the property of the the responsible part seventy original claims had the opportunity to simply write a letter to the court and say i still claim an interest in the phone but you going to real world problem again this keeps coming up those letters was sent to cuban addresses as they were i believe around nine hundred sixty five and i don't think anyone realistically expects that in fact they were providing notice that resists change which is why there was notice published which was approve have people disappearing you have people that abandon their interest but now we go to what was the purpose of those two laws and that hasn't been controverted in this record q what was facing a flight capital hundred fifty one when the castro revolution commenced people with money literally took their wealth and sent their wealth offshore no question about that and as a result of that it agricultural based economy they were further have suffering from a financier severe financial crisis in terms of having enough money in order to acquire the capital goods necessar in order to support or to support go to congress as a result they basically prospect of lee said really back to you get to keep it it's yours nobody's taking it well they also then said nine about coercive as appropriate extraterritoriality exception does not apply and the first place to begin is in the supreme court's decision in sabatini where the court explained that the general understanding of the active state doctrine is that it's something that applies only to assets that are located within the territory of the foreign state and i make sense if you look at the policy rationale for the doctrine itself which is about respecting territorial sovereignty there may be rare circumstances in which courts have applied the extraterritorial exception and said that it applies even to assets located outside the country but those are truly rare circumstances and indeed it's not clear even that some of those court of appeals cases have survived the supreme court's later decision in ws kirkpatrick where this from cork have been the act but regardless if you look at those cases you'll see just how rare a situation it is in which the act of state doctrine would apply after territorially in belmont for example you had the united states itself acting is the plaintiffs in telling the court that t foreign policy the court should give a fact extraterritorial to an act of this of your government your of course the united states is saying just the opposite we're informing the court that u s policy would not be furthered by invoking the after territorial exception and at least at the very minimum we think that that is entitle to wait and perhaps at least it is positive as to the extraterritorial as you just use the government's argument as to why there's you know arguing that there's no interest in enforcing it is what well it's several things and so part of what the government's foreign policy interest here is that the assets here happen to be assets that are blocked under an economic sanctions program and it's a view of the executive branch that keeping those assets blocked  important because among other things it serves as a bargaining chip in international negotiations and so if the court were to recognize the accuracy doctrine here and ultimately conclude that these assets should go to the plaintiffs and we think that that would harm us foreign policy interest and i don't see how true that can be the source of the conclusion that there are not cuban assets and if it's if it's good for that side it's to be equally to hear i understand the sanctions argument but the three argument since a bit of weak to say that that's part of what we have to defer to an active state perhaps it's better to back up here and i think it's important understand posture in which the case record reaches the court but the case reaches the court under the district court's understanding that unless the extra applies state law perhaps with regard without regard to a choice of law principles whatever you think it is treated as telling you to do to apply ownership that answer is not human law now is that that was you think the the premise that had to be the promise of the concluding were that it's not going to be treated extraterritorial i think the premise to your honor's question is the premise that trio is making some sort of choice of law and judge if that were true then i don't see how the district court concluded could have concluded that it can be he's source of concluding whether or not to give effect to the act of state there is a separate foreign policy interest of the united states i get that which is the sanctions are there is and i just want to put i think that sanctions interest is sufficient and should should control case certainly especially given the deference that the united states is we think its merits here but to answer your question some of the policy underlying treaty is the idea that you want the terrorist country to fuel the plane itself these are assets that nobody thinks that cuba has dominion over it's not like cuba could one day wake up and say wouldn't it be great if we spent all the money there was in computer shares account and used it to advance whatever policies of cuba they and of course it can't and that's because these are assets that are located in the united states and as far as anybody was concerned if it wasn't for tria then presumably after the unblocking was done these would computershare would would dispose of these assets as the account holders  directed it to so given that it's not like this is something that cuba has it's hard to see how cuba would be feeling the pain of its terrorism if these assets were ultimately forfeited to the plaintiffs in quite the contrary if anybody would be feeling the pain of the forfeit would be the individual account holders i guess what i'm asking is this even an interest to make this argument because limit it would suggest that if you were trying to make an argument as in the russian case it was in the foreign policy  as a human as a tria would suggest that under the act of doctoring we couldn't and that seems like an argument that i don't think i don't quite understand why you don't just want that case i would think you would want it not to be a tree of these the argument to be an argument say that the cuban nationals are our innocence and that what's going on here is confiscation of the assets of innocence with no showing of wrongdoing of liability of any wrong on their part whatsoever because you had originally agreed to the judgments sorry the he took over orders below your honor last quite clear that a an order of a court which only decides a part of the issues in a case which doesn't in the case and in addition that order is also noted also noted that there was an object or and that would be further hearings with respect to that objection so the situation your honor was after even that there were two thousand and fourteen period  and it says that we are the foreign law is of primarily punitive in nature and not compensatory u s courts should not apply and that set forth in their statement third of international relations that the us section forty three i believe taking money out of the country during a time of crisis it's a criminal law and it has to be enforced by the human justice minister cuban courts and it is it is  it is their own expert said that this forced by the cuban courts of the cuban justice minister indicates this is a criminal law this is a criminal law condition the assets as confiscated are to be paid into the human national bank and therefore to be used in the reconstruction of cuba so what you've got here the law is a criminal law enforced by the government with the assets that are national so is that a law which is penal or is it compensatory in nature roger july seventh two thousand and fifteen this order is issue the rule itself must be mechanically applied mechanically applied it is formalistic it doesn't look to attention it looks to what's on the piece of paper what's on a piece of paper must be complete self contained to practice fetus this rule is an element of the separate document you can't separate docking rule it provides for a one stop shop it's a piece of paper it's got have all the party all all the parties everything is going to be here in this one place and when that happens the parties know that the time period for appeals and motions has been triggered now when we got here look at the rule requiring self containment complete later motions they filed with respect to the certificate of shares no this document is a reference go look someplace else for what's happened here because it's not here this document then does not specifically refer to a couple of record references that came up in order i did like the court to specifically look at the record at the trustees answer which is r fifty eight in the t ees answer you will see he said nothing in the trustees as you're saying other then we will cooperate we can turn over what we have which are the cash and the book shares we can't turn over the computer shares there is nothing in that answer poses or raises an issue that answer was never amended will be very clear on that the second point which really goes to the major issue that we've been discussing today is how we come to the says if it's given property we've the truck or said it is then it should be used to pay the judge the government argues conversely it shouldn't be used to pay the government it should be used as a bargaining chip but they're kind of silent on exactly what that means now certainly if you were to ask him what do they intend their law to apply to that asset is included i don't think it would be logical to do so well you know if it's not cuban has showed huge interest in the affair affects of what happens to some of the citizens particularly extraterritorial so those bargaining chip is given to cuba and that's where the trip public policy comes in the policy issue of trade if i follow where you're going now would say the u s hasn't articulated any particular policy reason not to treat it as human as ok but why is that enough for you because the government's other argument and defendants are human is they don't have to because since it's extraterritorial we would only be treated as cuba's property if there was some special reason to do so because i would certainly not think there's a special reason to do the economics to be if you give that effect that's question should be and that's why it is a bargaining chip what we really have is almost illogical inconsistent position because it can't be a bargaining chip in the international arena for cuba the one hand you know any it can still be a bargaining chip if the united states reserves its position on the extraterritorial except it doesn't have to take the position now  or at the beginning of negotiations that it recognizes cuban title if it can it can play its cards close to its to the vest and it will still be a bargain respect i think that the bargaining chip in at least my simplistic thinking would contemplate least from what is publicly disseminated about the cuban demands on bargaining is what goes to cuba stays with cuba and it seems to be that is all that they are interested in i don't think that the idea that will will be close to the chest plays any role in this particular situation at all it is either cuba's in a bargaining chip or does