counsel is here i don't recognize the gentleman i never met him before when in fact i am challenging the rule of law that was handed to the united states district court judge decision of the earlier animal of the ninth circuit for me when do i get to challenge a rule that i think is ridiculous you know and i don't want to say appeal to the supreme court and i suppose what i'm going to get if they were willing to entertain it would be no you already i'm sure you've thought about it a lot the argument that occurs to me in support of the prior anil's decision is that the h convention is intended to approach back people from a situation where i trialed is effects snatched from one country and take another country and under the umbrella of the hague convention you then say you know timeout the country of the trials the bitch will residence is the one with the choice of law that controls and whatever and and i'm thinking that the part a panel possibly thought if at the time the decision is made no longer a fight between two countries but only a fight within one nation that is now the state of hawaii that the real purpose of the hague convention is  eight for it's now sixteen years old in terms of the federal legislation the i care international child abduction remedies act and that this was only the second decision i believe of the basically is very simple the treaty and the law implementing it stands for only one thing and that is the shalt try the pile custody proceeding if there is to be one in the place it and the total time involved was something on the order of four to six years so i think it is the legal fiction or the fact that we're talking about what's right as of the time of the end of the event after that on comes the remedy now you can get into argument about whether it was properly employed in this than the other that's not what we're here for today that's what i have never been allowed to get into except the oral argument two years ago  said let me just address this one point before i forget of the cause although i don't believe this patient go off on whether the judge was right in finding a permanent residence on the ass of my clan i do have to make the argument i know as i don't think that belongs in here deprive somebody of a right that they acquired because of the wrongdoing of the other party ok and you don't do anything to support wrongdoing as a matter of public policy you absolutely do not do anything or have rules of moved to hawaii and we used that phrase prominently moved and used it twice what rule of law principles the fact that judge king have applied he used the rule of domicile was fact an appropriate four wasn't so that we should feel inhibited from revisiting it so put another way if somebody moves to the country where their child has been abducted to why should that factor in to the liveliness of the controversy under the hague convention let me see if i can understand the court's person the question  canada she was for the time no question about it he was removed in protest of the doctor the children brought him to hawaii and then the proceedings began the problem is that the convention doesn't mention anything to do on the merits it may have a lot to do with it that is where is the have visual residence that the child should be returned to so happy but here's here's the problem i've got with your concept  why does the hague convention mean to prohibit a mother or a father that is the other parent from going where the child is either for emotional reasons or financial place in fact was the question we were dealing with was whether the children or entitle two resident two working at the university of hawaii and the same facts were presented only on cross examination she admitted that really the only reason she was in hawaii was to watch her children participate in the intercollegiate sports and the soon as their four years was up in hawaii she intended to return to canada what would be the appropriate  let me see if i can understand the question is is is the court saying what would be the fact of the children would be a pending session hypothetically that is that of the hague convention we're dealing with whether these kids play hawaii just because of that just leave because of that and she's going to be visiting and only that factor well i will retract i don't think that she would be classified as a permanent having permanently relocated you name of the case unfortunately probably will ring a bell with you when i describe what i remember of it which is that the the father husband was in the armed services stationed in germany and the family went to germany having lots of problems the wife in the child come back to this country i believe to washington on a vacation and decide to stay so in effect the kids have been removed from germany on the air force base or whatever to the state of washington in the husband father comes back home use american citizen no question about that no question  convention but if you are right then how could that queens have proceeded with any kind of jurisdiction i'm not i'm not sure to be honest with you i'm trying know to be perfectly honest with you and your best explanation for why changing down the style is just assumed she did changing donna style matters is what do your best argument for them my best argument is it's that she moved she moved over incomes over to this country i recently there was a lot of litigation going on so i understand it was not privy to that but there was a lot of litigation to that might i get i maybe i'm kind of stuck  because the second part of it is from the convention is that the convention is trying to say where is the custody issue going to be litigated or under what's lost if she had stayed over in and i'm going to hope i meet straight the the real purpose ah yes but you see that's the choice of lot issue and i can understand all that and maybe on the merits of the hague convention problem ins up in a pickle maybe or maybe not i don't know but my question is whether it goes to the court's jurisdiction already power to adjudicate try to turn it around and he didn't have any more money one other thing you can overrule the earlier because it's not the law of the case there's been no decision that was not a decision there was an