say be satisfied from assets that are contained in a criminal defendants you receive qualified pension plan there are three reasons why this court should conclude that congress intended that arista qualified pension plan be subject to the enforcement of a criminal restitution judgment i will list those three reasons and then explain each of them first in section thirty six thirteen eight i was in criminal code congress stated that the list of exemptions that applies to the enforcement of a federal criminal judgment is is applicable and that was standing any other provision of the social security act or of any other federal law second in section thirty six thirteen see congress instructed that the list of that criminal judgments for restitution should be enforced in the same fashion as federal tax judge thirteen c third your honors in section thirty six thirteen see congress listed certain times engines that are exempt from execution to satisfy a federal criminal death congress could have sixty four your honor congress did make an exception from the aristotelian eight empty alienation provisions for criminal judgments that are pertain to crimes committed against the plan and that was in response to th yesterday we believe your honor that that is not implicate section thirty six thirteen a because that provision of section d four applies to any criminal judgment it could be entered in state court as a result of a crime believe that section thirty six thirteen a is another exception to the n t alienation provisions of arista for the three reasons that i mentioned at the outset for example in section thirty six thirteen a the congress made certain kinds of pension benefits i'm not aware of that you're on vision of section thirty six thirteen a is very similar to the language that's included in the internal revenue code which was construed by this court i standing he elevated presence of something in the order of appearance yesterday your honor and in title twenty six section sixty three thirty four subs see that's the internal revenue code i have my technician against rights and says that for his noted arista benefits are not subject to the anti alienation provisions as soon as they're paid to the beneficiary so we have a lean government has a lien for the benefit of victims of crime on the assets at the time that they're in the plan and under the rights in case we know that the government can execute on those benefits as soon as they're paid out and so really the only thing we're talking about in the state is a timing issue of whether victims have to wait in order to obtain the value of that asset that they have to wait until and a risk of planned beneficiary becomes entitled to receive with my understanding is that there is no set aside money for and eventually and it's only actuarially available to them but it's not available to them at this point well thinking thinking more about your honor's question it may certainly be the pension plans that have the kind of provision that the runners mention would decline to pay and properly so and still the beneficiary becomes actuarial actuarially eligible to receive them which  in this case may department stores is the is the operator of the plan and they they have never told us that mr novak is not entitled to the money to the contrary we believe mr novak is entitled to the money he's also old enough  only consequence of your position is of the government gets its money now instead of later but what is this a pension plan where the person has been convicted of a crime and a subject for the rest to shoot or dies before the re distribution date and the pension now goes according to the pension terms to the surviving spouse well at that point i don't think the restitution order operates against the surviving spouse does it your honor first of all the government doesn't doesn't get the money be quite clearly talks about the innocent parties who might be the beneficiaries of the clan and the desire of congress to protect them and the desire therefore to make it very explicit and then you congressional statement that they intend t is is read by this court to mean simply that the district court lacks an equitable power at the time of sentencing to fashion the remedy that the district court did in jackson but that's that's an equitable power that's not available under then there's no problem with jackson if jackson is is read to mean much much more broadly that the united states and a crime victim can never accept the money in a recent qualified pension plan then we and that's the only one yes right and there is there is no case that we've we located that holds that arista qualified pension plans may not be accessed by crime victims pursuant to section thirty six of t statutes say opposite things and one of them says notwithstanding any other statute that seems to me like a fairly clear directive from congress that the notwithstanding statute trumps more general statute they do that all the time it's just a common way to write statutes what's matter with it i think that if you look at that notwithstanding language in the context of guidry then watch discussed by mr whittlesey you got exceptions with respect to a risk for real retirement benefits you have received exception for workers compensation benefits you have exception for a medal of honor winners you have that but according to get really has to do it like loosely but why is it that the supreme court said that it has to be a clear statement not because of some something unique and a rest of it because it said in a rare and every case you didn't have a congressional enactment of any times on one side that could be argued to be a specific an act when you had the general notion that federal labor law somehow ought to commit a constructive trust a very general against the specific is there anything more than then that's a good reason talking about that requires a fair a simply said if you're convicted of a crime your pension benefits can be taken to satisfy restitution that's a specific statement a receipt isn't even mentioned in the n p r a it's not even mentioned in the history says i thought we just have this just before all good recess is a very general reference in the federal labor law used by a court to impose a constructive trust that's too general that doesn't trump a specific statute but it seems to clear intention otherwise a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one we do nothing leave the congressional with the intent would be effectuated by reading the l m r d a's general reference to other appropriate relief as overriding an expressed specific congressional directive that pension benefits not be subject to simon or alienation now building on what judge clifton just asked you it looks to me as though congress responded here with a specific statute about which trumps which does not say that there's some super status to the arista anti alias nation provision it's not like aggregation under the fourteenth amendment at where where you need an especially high degree of clarity it's just two statutes of equal force that might be hard to reconcile if they didn't give you language telling which trumps which  have done and that's how the second circuit knowledge district courts have read it is there any sr circuit that's read it your way no there is no sr circuit that has read it my way but i don't believe there is any sister circuit including the second circuit in irving that has read it the other way irving refers i believe that it in this particular case a multinational corporation but i don't think we need to distinguish between corporations and individuals who are putting the rights of an individual over the rights of paid state taxing  entire in jackson are dealing with this with the with the jackson is dealing specifically with the pension well with the cashing out of a pension and immediate payment of a pension plan mcentire does not deal with that so i that i don't i don't believe that was my i don't know if i understand your position correctly then in the type of plan where the employee does have the power to cash out take its money and he can a criminal employee can avoid paying restitution to the victim of this crime by choosing to leave this money restitution i don't agree with that particular concept i don't know that that's the that's what's happening here but i think that if that is something that could happen then it's up to congress to stimulating but i don't think that answer the question worries me here is that we've got various kinds of pensions some of them are specific to the particular individual who have been convicted of a crime and who are subject to rest in order and indeed within that category sometimes they can get  money right now if they simply ask other parishes passions however far contingent upon various things and indeed may never come to the first one who has been convicted of the finder for example that person pre seasons the distribution did under the pension it may end up going by virtue of the pension agreement to the surviving spouse is it possible to read property or rights to property and to allow execution as against someone property but to protect it if it's contingent right to figure out if there are some workable ways take into consideration the various sexual situations we're going to come into and the court references a good read in terms of by the government the right versus riverland right right out of our circuit dealt with distributors and distribute money and in the ninth circuit help that if the money is being distributed or is being assign taxed if you if your client responsible for that and that's an interesting point whether an involuntary distribution creates the tax on the initial beneficiary of the plan i don't know any reason to think it would the answer would be different than the answer in a tax collection case that if money is taken out of a pension account for tax collection presumably it has whatever tax impact it has with this case be any different i don't think it would be i don't know  i'd like to go back for just a minute to the the clip level of clarity of the notwithstanding any other federal law provision if that provision were were found by the courts not to be sufficiently clear to over override the at risk the ante alienation provisions it would in effect require congress to put in a laundry list of statutes every time it wants to amend a statute so congress would have to say in section thirty six thirteen a not withstanding arrest notwithstanding the crop insurance a when i don't have an answer to that your honor but let me let me let me come back to a different version of good one just talking about people who may be innocent who may be beneficiaries of the pension plans even if someone has i mentioned john every time we've taken foresman action we have sex spouses we affect errors we have fact all kinds of people who thought that they had a property interest and property that the government is taking and i don't see you know we don't in most of those cases we don't have a congressional intent statements that the purpose of that property plans today that is true your honor however the crop insurance payments that you presumably the veterans disability pensions that you the railroad retirement benefits actually those are all intended i would