associated the many appeals they had in the court disposed of them and made some comments about limited partnerships and the nature of the seems to do nothing but close the receivership of state and authorize the receiver's compensation yes judge is there anything else before us yes yes the interpretation of judge posner is worse in antiques limited one how was that reflected in the order that is on because it seemed as you said just as a post judgment order yes judge right in a post judgment order you can't complain about the substantive judgment that time has come and gone there been how many ea up of the receivership which is not an occasion for re arguing the substance of the lawsuit yes judge unless the court decides that there was a mishap location of this court's opinion or and how was it misapplied in this judgment because the court below took at that ownership shareholders ownership in a limited partnership a corporate entity that that ownership included ownership of assets of the how did that affect this judgment how did that affect this judgment yes the judgment of november th two thousand and seventeen that all of thing on appeal because that judgment the results of that judgment took property away from i know the result of that judgment is that the receivership the state is closed yes and the receiver is compensated i can't see anything else being resolved in my mistaken what else does this thing do this thing it's on appeal judge with all respect of course there's that because and the limited partnerships i maintain the concealment occurred in the case and that the interpretation of this court was not correct can you point me to something in the judgment that does something other than close the receivership the state and compensate the receiver i see what you're saying and that is what it did but then it resulted that dippin you in here resulted the interpretation of it we contend resulted in the sale of property of one person namely a corporate entity to pay the tax liability a judgment order were approved the sale of property i don't see it you can't keep complaining for ever about what happened in the past a taken a timely appeal from the judgment of november th two thousand and seventeen but the things you can raise are the things that judgment did and you don't appear to be contesting any of the things that this drug what do you point me to to say that this thing that thing on appeal took property from one person and gave it to another or ordered property sold or approved the results of a sale where is it was not said forthrightly that way judge has to brooke but it's the result of it is what we're focusing on the sale occurred years ago yes it did up before the court for many years just been going on reaching back almost thirty years the facts of this case and pro ten years the government has been attempting to move on this property that did not belong to th the long to the l p s and we believe i'm not going to repeat myself i have a habit of doing that you understand i know you know what i'm saying but if i may proceed i will thoroughly to wish the whole property in america either a warm blooded person owns property or a cold blooded corporation intangible owns property there are no other options option that's the st principle that i see is violated in the application of this this court's worse nd term want to quote the st president of the university of illinois in milton gregory he says one cannot impart what one does not possess one cannot impart what one does not possess no person has a right therefore to do wrong which is simply and generally a number three time does not equal due process time does not equal due process the passage of time doesn't especially if that time is result driven and not driven by a genuine course of due process now i was told a long time ago by my professor in law school that the corporation is not you and i don't remember anything much from business organizations class except that and he said it all through the corporation is not you if i may i want to reserve what i've got left your nothing to respond to quoting we have held that the possibility of financial adjustments among the parties keeps a proceeding alive even if the sale cannot be upset and rights under a plan a reorganization cannot be revised and then this