zero two five six two two and zero three five six two zero seven and each party will have ten minutes to discuss the fugitive dissin title  doctrine and we'll hear from colombia first morning morning your honor with the court's permission i would like to reserve proximately three minutes or i want how much every time i have left her about her keep track of your time thank you appeals based upon his fugitive status from two warrants issued by cutest record judges into related closely related actions the warrants w issued after ivan over had been held in civil contempt of the court's orders after the court had assessed substantial fines without any success for i prior to the court prior to the district court issuing those warrants i've been over filed two appeals with this court asking this court to stay the contempt findings and thereby  cease all activities and any benefit from any of the thirty three films he has done that i've been over was directed to turn over to the court the negatives and other film elements for all thirty three films that columbia actually owns these physical elements because it purchased them decades ago from the production companies so the court ordered ivan over to turn over what was and what is colombia's property but assuming the court's hypothetical first i have to say that there is no case in point that we can find that addresses this issue but we believe that given the nature and the purpose of the parliament doctoring that the court has the power to exercise that doctrine without finding subject matter jurisdiction and the reason for this is i think flows from the nature of the doc itself as the eleventh circuit has held in the right grievous case the doctorin is an equitable doctrine that relates to the court's power to administer the docket and to administer proceedings and the courts circuit when you say it's an equitable doctors i mean we could look look past the the the fact of the status and decide in our in our discretion whether or not to really is no question that in the second suit there is jurisdiction if you want to reserve the balance of your time  waiting three years to talk about the ruling that led to the arrest warrant over the elements of the films was issued as a sanction also for violating that order your honor of the proceedings related to those eight pictures turned out to be a farce and the court did not have subject matter it's rights and it the contract is almost certainly a forgery but we decided that we would just give columbia all of the rights up till the end date and then with their rights and it we would resume distribution of the films you're on we've never violated any other aspect of the order judge ray issued the injunction and he here's what you reason if the state respects the purported first refusal right it will be in a win win matter any further you know maybe maybe judge ray was wrong but the problem is if your guy says a letter to the judge and says go to hell i'm like i'm not going to do it you have ordered me to do it  colombia responded to our we gave them all the terms of contract colombia responded and they accepted the contract they still had to prove that they had the rights at trial the only claim that would forward at trial your honor were the defendant on we were responding to columbia's first refusal claim we were the only party to the loss of your honor the court violated article three of the constitution by ignoring the case in controversy before it in issuing a gratuitous judgment against the you wanted the judgment destroyed everyone's rights in films we can't distribute the films columbia can't distribute the that was in violation of article three of the constitution we're clear violation we were the defendant and want to intern the first refusal right wing columbia asked the court not to rule on that claim to respond to the motion to dismiss under the fugitive disinvite of the doctrine has more than half expired and you haven't addressed the motion yet you would probably want to tell us why we films in mexico we want to carefully selected films that colombian had given up its rights to columbia had no rights to these films we also chose mexico because that's where we own the copyright and we were engaging  back in the problem is that your guy is outside the jurisdiction of the court and says he's not coming back and so he he's got a heads i win tails you lose sort of position here if he wins the appeal great if not  rule on columbia's claim the court just issued a gratuitous ruling against us the defendants saying we couldn't distribute our films i say that that's the clearest violation of article three of the  two minutes titles anywhere in the world so i vote for either an over the say that he's only distributing wanted two titles is contrary to the district court ruling and also cannot be tested the on that because he has refused to appear to explain his distribution activities as to the jurisdiction only issue i just wanted to add that the court even in cases action has the power to award attorney's fees so the existence of jurisdiction is not the cynic one not for the court taking it ministry of action also the court has jurisdiction to determine the extent of its own jurisdiction and in so doing decide what faces to decide and what cases not to the side and the decision not to hear these fields is well within th film for primary contract with a nine hundred seventy nine contract under which columbia took sixty five percent of the proceeds paid out thirty five of the proceeds so that to my client and his son his company's columbia argue another penny from the grounds ever again parties for twenty years twenty instead put on a case that a company called columbia pictures corporation limited on the films outlay with no obligation to pay it's a long story just really ruled in favor of two thousand in one case that was the case were we were supposedly going to be able to prove our right to collect the thirty five percent under that all contract i was left with no this is a complicated  columbia convince judge wright that by my filing this new lawsuit related to the nine hundred seventy nine contract that i was violating and not the all stipulated judgment or judge raise judgment or ball i never really to make threats upon televisa and that it caused televisa to breach a contract that it had with the states and i think the same reasoning that judge have recently in colombia applied to the mexican infringement claim should apply judgment and that's the state court case the court ruled that conference last was the owner of the films and the question is who succeeded to his rights and what mexico that's the only action that will eventually have any impact upon our mexican copyrights but all three of those cases are currently pending conduct thoroughly understood and applied judge ray's opinions the two feet parts of that opinion with respect to the rule eleven motion is our judge read his finding and declaration that columbia owns all worldwide intellectual property and related rights in all twenty six pictures and that i've been told up owns no rights in any of the thirty four pictures was talking about ownership of the copyrights and other intellectual property rights and the issue of the entitlement to royalties was resolved and i'll speak to that in a more in about a minute the second key part of judge ray's decision is the injunction the permanent injunction which is identical to a preliminary injunction which was upheld by this court that i over is prohibited from distributing exploiting marketing negotiating or benefiting and any way from any of the thirty three pictures anywhere in the world now based upon this how can i have an owner file a claim for tortious interference with his rights to distribute the films when he is expressively enjoin from distributing those films you know what i don't what i don't understand here is mr o'reilly has not been inattentive to this case whatever else you think about the merits of their of their position he misses a rule sixteen scheduling conference because his father is taken ill or an emergency basis his case gets dismissed because then that's the part i don't get here well while the  dismissal because of the failure to attend the hearing was a triggering event it really was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back judge ray had sanctioned mr reilly a thousand dollars rights in the pictures and no sooner than does he give us those rights and two weeks later i've been over ignoring those rulings files a new lawsuit to try to deprive columbia of those rights that has stayed away in the sort of a judge raise rulings he has continuously refused to abide by any of the rules he's made it clear that this is a heads i win tails you  o all of the royalties the full thirty five percent of the one nine hundred ninety three stipulated judgment so as that is only in title to something between eleven percent and twenty two percent that other parties jack and government are also entitled to participations and i have been over this claim completely ignored the nine hundred ninety four stipulated judgement and instead said all the royalties thing to do would have been just strike a could have refile the complaint but instead your honor it was thrown out as if it was a complete atrocity that i would be filing a claim claiming participation in the films after we would argue to the mexican courts that we had every right to do that that the intransigent is clearly wrong by our standards of line mexico and that we never got a fair shake in the united states or because it's an international