ahead ok the contempt case originally started with a civil case an i b c london which is a chinese bank against blacks since during that lawsuit the summary the court it really is whether the court abused its discretion issuing the contempt court order to a nonparty in always as in o s recovery the circuit held in two thousand and six that it would be an abuse of discretion holding a nonparty with that said bring him in was subsequently indicted for contempt and then he went to trial the next issue before the court which we believe short when did the federal government become a debt collector for this bank i don't know i believe on the fraud case brennaman into the case i respectfully submit that if you do the four o three balancing tests it was more prejudicial than probative to allow the civil contempt orders into the criminal case based on that evidence alone discretion i think when if you look at the evidence before the jury you know twelve people i think when they will king at evidence presented in a criminal trial when you have an order which is similar to the what the proof was in the criminal trial not the proof meaning beyond the really reasonable doubt but that the allegations that he was already convicted of a contempt order or ordered you know that he that this particular evidence was you know prejudicial towards him so if you have the jury and that evidence is being presented in a criminal case you know i would think that it's very very difficult for a juror to differentiate and therefore the judge respectfully the judge in this particular instance i believe that he should have known and he buz the discretion by permitting that evidence to go before the jury and you know i bet that's that's just my argument judge i think that the abuse of discretion analysis you know by allowing it was very extremely prejudicial towards the defendant let leslie in be be eviden issues that we briefed on i believe on the reply like the judge said that i was came in late is that there was no evidence the judge didn't permit evidence of settlement agreement or settlement negotiations with the chinese bank the case he would have mid he admitted exits f x the d n a because they showed what the defendant knew about the settlement discussions and the judge found that that was permissible for his good  faith defense and x looted at mid end of the settlement discussions either because you sought to introduce them in a form that the judge sustained objection to or they were not documents in which the defendant was aware now why wasn't that all found why aren't those all sound rulings by the judge well they were they what i believe is judge it this circles back and you and your correct judge i'm looking at my  you are correct i believe it circles back that he was denied the opportunity by the court to percent present any witnesses from my c b c that the court judge the judge ruled that he was not this by saying he wouldn't allow what was it you weren't allowed to put in that was prejudicial well i guess your honor that you're correct that it was objection to form and the lawyer at the time which was not me should have you know i misread that particular evidence and rely on the four of four b four hundred and three analysis as well as the non party for for the st issue regarding the st appeal would we would i go in right now to the th appeal or would we want the government or hear from the government on that that your entire as my entire role or argument we have we will rely on the brief or saying and then he also explains that the evidence is being introduced for a limited purpose the typical way as part of the background and specifically to only be considered in assessing proof of the defendant's intent and his determined that there was evidence of criminal contempt and also in the course of that investigation uncovered a massive fraud which was the basis for the other trial again contempt by the district court is that your position correct began and what was the basis for the referral that mr brennan meant simply did not produce what was required of him during discovery or he was as well as we know will phone or contemptuous of no thank you ok