selfish finish what you're saying i want to ask your question about the topic right so it's very much like reading a contract that you have to read it as a whole and so when you read these three provisions as a whole they're talking about is because it makes it clear that courts cannot simply answer orders requiring you know allowing sees your assets that are not related to the subject matter of the underlying law ok before we get before we get to lou here's my question for you if you're not attacking the st injunction and the rd clause the judge columns just read to you you read it is only relating to assets already identified or something like that but the judge in the nd injunction said let me make it clear what i meant the st time was precisely what what we're talking about today and there's a lot of case law that anything other than unlawful net profits or real gotten gains in the underlying case logically they cannot go out and simply freeze any asset that why why why  trade act get an injunction so that the people that were harmed can later seek seek damages or restitution from the agency even if it well there's nothing in the in every case they do they are limited by the confines of equitable restitution they can't go above and beyond and so it may be that in the case inadvertently seen property that y always have the option to proceed in ultimate judgment against assets owned by the individual and so that's a fight that remains for another day as i  five million dollars judgment and had assets of five million dollars but no one could then the ashes that would currently in the possession of the defendant could be tied to the specific wrongful conduct because it's been so much going on you're saying that they couldn't read any of that and satisfaction of that judgment yes that's that's one of the principles of equitable restitution has a different says somewhat different language it may be less broad than the s e c act i don't know but but it seems to me the issue in front of the court in am jamie is how to interpret the language in the federal trade act and i have no idea what they're going to say which is always true with the supreme court so why question is would we be wise to wait for them to see what they say about the scope of the federal trade act provision with respect to remedy well i would i would ordinarily counsel prudence and and defer to the courts thought process but in this case we have the receivers wear face masks protective face masks and the increasing death toll among americans and the need for many and us a face mask i think gives this case an additional sense of urgency that would not otherwise exist we have a commission and morning your honour's man please the court i'm mark i guess for the federal trade commission case concerns what this court has characterized in its affordable media decision as the great public interest in preserving assets for possible equitable relief and here five million dollars worth of assets are frozen in subject to the receivership a card of potential liability for defrauding consumers exceeds eighteen million  supreme court does it affect this injunction your honor if there's no ability to get any kind of equitable relief and the point of the injunction was to preserve assets for that equitably then yes i would have to agree with that but i would i would like to just point out that the district court should have the opportunity to rule in the st instance about what we might vacated remand and send it back to this record we're just trying to figure out as as a prudent matter whether or the current law this court can dispose of this case and reject the appeal and then allow the district court to rule in the st instance about how m g should be applied based upon the fact record that has been established before the district i is clear that it reaches carter's assets were never acquired when the district court entered that p r i it was aware of cartage track record of lying about reaches cardus assets whenever there acquired because we don't have an assurance of that in business is that mr cardiff may start but there are assets coming from some of the illegal activity  mr cardus has refused to come clean with respect to his asset disclosures he's been found in contempt on a number of occasions for that reason so it's certainly prudent reasonable for the district court to ent i that extends to his current assets as a prudent measure health insurance that there would be money available to provide equitable relief if at the end of the day mr so that v p n now can do the necessary upgrades to its facilities to produce these masks and so the ability for the business to continue and to make mass is there so the receivership is not impeding that with respect to the assets that are under that are frozen i would like to point out that lou even if it does apply if we can assume that it applies doesn't change the  in the defendants argued lou on a number of occasions but in each one they never actually came forward with any numbers to prove that any of the expenses were legitimate the only thing that they pointed to was  gone as has summaries judgment has been decided here and so the district court could make a ruling about whether or not there has been a showing regarding widget and expenses we believe that the record shows that there has been no showing that there are legitimate expenses in this case there has been no can you help us out with respect to the status of the district court i know there's a summary judgment on liability is your trial schedule on remedy is  r schedule the schedule is that once the m g decision is issued then the parties need to do a joint status report to address further proceedings  this case but based upon what the m g decision ultimately is the parties will work with the district court judge to determine what the subsequent proceedings will look like when we're also going to show that doesn't apply and all that that is our principal contention but for purposes of resolving this case this court does not need to reach that issue because of why in your view it does why your honors you could actually make that determination just based upon this record even in this record the defendants here have been able to cut could come forward and show what the legitimate the redwood scientific enterprise lost money what we do know from the record and it is discussed even in the district court decisions is that the redwood scientific enterprise spent millions of dollars on advertising and media to try to sell their fraudulent products to consumers it spent about three million two hundred thousand dollars to acquire these products to sell to consumers we now know that that was a fraudulent and price and so those expenses cannot be legitimate expenses under lou so this court certainly could rule even based upon this record that lou is not satisfied  in fact is satisfied that the amount that has been frozen is far less than the mt of potential ecuador monetary least that would be order at the end of the case implies a broader scope of relief than is available under the f c c the securities exchange act with the use of the term equitable relief that broader scope is defined by poor which is of course  we didn't even start manufacturing operations for five months because of delays and and mistakes by the receivers some of which received i want to ask you about that that that's a separate issue from your arguments about the limits of restitution is it not it is this issue don't we you made those arguments the district court the district court didn't buy them we were view that for abuse of discretion right it  is certainly again it gets down to you know the public interest and i recognize said overruling a preliminary injunction on the public interest factor is is rare rarely if ever done just as one of those cases where there's a national emergency where we think that there should have been some greater consideration in a different modification of it we do believe that when you talk about related versus unrelated to subject matter of the case there has to be tracing otherwise how do you determine was related secondly we think that the injunction in redwood is tied directly to  and there was no i think the receiver's report is incredibly strong evidence with a very lengthy analysis of the assets and they said no net