there we lost you there for a few minutes because you're go i might i suggest that you change to audio on the phone to continue your argument ok how do i do that soon you find the mute button at the bottom left of your screen got it there's an upward where richard can we just try this without going to phone yeah yeah i guess you're hearing me now so i'm not sure what happened to grind now ok i don't know what i trust nothing i guarantee  was a limit on the the plaintiff's case here against your client and that i'm not his question for opposing counsel well it's still a little confusing to me what exactly is on appeal in this case certainly reads like a final order but later is described as just being tentative so i'll look it is that final on it i would i would agree with you but the record a you know this is i'm confirming my fire tentative and this is the final to deny the anti suit notion and when you say that the order again you're referring to e r one through t as it says that union force man or any ruling that would affect such orders is outside the jurisdiction of the district or and is reserved for the well i mean if the court is i mean it's just the whole premise of the order i mean where is there's no there's no legal basis for the injunction except in so far decree by you know they would be by a leading agency to create if they'd had to hire them back most likely if they actually had doesn't want to be reinstated and the provisional order is finding on him individually already so he is not in any way trying to be actually the f b i see in the exhibit or maybe i'm missing something here but i guess you're saying that if you're really care about the injunction you're really objecting to the injunction no absolutely we are rejecting  pursuing a judgment in mexico and somehow violate the prohibition or really consent decree that's the whole basis of their their motion and length and that finding would basis that's not what we're doing here and that's true in a few ways what it is that there's a difference between seeking to enforce an order against mister valar and seeking to protect ourselves against being put into a position where we would be violating the law if we were to hire him back or and this is the nd part there is the whole aspect of the golden parachute problem which is that any payments that we would make to him in this such payments that is not of forcing the order that is just something where again we're seeking protection against having him in force in order that would put us as the district court said between a rock and a hard place where you know we would either have to violate a mexico border or violate u s law there are however additional reasons subject of an order is attempting to get a federal court to either hold d that some part of an order is invalid but basically to escape the prescribe and obviously review can have different meanings one mean one dictionary meaning is simply look something over which is maybe what you'd be doing in looking at the order in the context of induction application here but it's clear in the context of this statute that review is being used in the sense in which a usually a higher court reviews in order to determine whether it is a valid ordering compliance with law and so forth or certainly not asking anybody to review the order you know is review goes along with modifies to spend germany we're not doing anything to the order here we're just trying to prevent ourselves from being put into the position of you know that that rock and and hard place and weather this was supposed to the you know there was some final decision on this aspect of our motion for injunction and really her you know if you look at august th this is a fourteen of the it continued things along the way it may have devoted more discussion and focus to the part that it was continue considering or more seriously considering entering doesn't mean it had so i do think that it is certainly you know timely appeals it's all part of that is the order that embodies the decision of the district court it gra it was you know when i read this early earlier minute of order in this minute order and some of the transcripts it seemed like the district judge was concerned that to whether or not the golden parachute fit within it over you know without a sign of it or somehow or other was affected by well i mean he was concerned that he would be in somehow or other interfering ina or whatever to know exactly what the district court's concern was there because it was not made one hundred percent clear i think but i think that with respect to the golden parachute  it's particularly clear that it's not about interpreted your there are golden parachute regulations that apply of their own force completely irrespective of anything that's in a probation order that mister barr is part of the industry so there is no interpretation i think that would be involved in that i honor i really think that in context i mean this is all about prescribe being a process of review meeting that's usually going to mean challenges to the order or appeals from the going to leave some part with the golden parachute is that with all respect to the district court i think the judge may have misinterpreted w granted is not the clearest statement by the regulators in their letters i think when you understand them and you read through them carefully clear but i think he jurisdiction we're not going to tell you whether violate the golden parachute regulations the f b i so you may be may tell you that and so we caution you you know not to go have read them is not something but it's saying there wasn't an issue when if you look at those letters clearly is not what they're saying but certainly if there is not something golden parachute issue does not turn in any way on the content of the prohibition order let alone you know amount to the kind of thing good this looks this qualifies as the golden parachute i mean yeah i think you know he's so big if you give it your best they're forced to pay it it's going to violate the prohibition order therefore works on this but that basically all these would be the extent that there are any payments there would be consequences or as part of an obligation to reinstate and so it actually would be a problem both as being part of a you know forgive it reinstatement and as a golden parachute issue i think that yeah so really like this hole laurie you know u s president was employed here was fired for cause because of these violations and then went to mexico to try to they had all of this i mean you know the corporate does save that whole project is is illegitimate and shouldn't continue were at a minimum could i supposed at least have say you know you're enjoying from doing it less until you get a ruling that it's not a golden parachute but i don't think that he should have just been sort of left out there down so this whole discussion  reminds me of when we had questions of state law and we seek certification from the supreme court to clarify state last week proceed in this case i was what you just recorded any different than well because i think that there is the court did issue an order this it ruled on the on the application for a player into injunction and that's what was going on in the district courts mind about lost did maybe it's unclear why you lost but nevertheless you lost that that is the way i would read it right you see my time is up thank you yes i think you proceedings in mexico are going to lead to violations of these things even though you've issued an opinion that we think is ambiguous we want to work to decide what your opinion really needs and what what the orders really lost the they have not pointed to any error made by the district or they haven't pointed to any application of an incorrect standard or or use an incorrect fact so that was a perfectly proper exercise of discretion that there is no no basis o