harrington and andrew banks as well as the real party in interest to deal with dorie law office this case is about the rule of law in particular whether the government is required to comply with a lot of judgment the law firm and the department of treasury and perhaps the department of education which was which held one of the debts by virtue of unpaid debts on the part of one of the reason why is because the government's own briefing makes clear and it is your proceeding ancillary jurisdiction and exists to answer the question of whether the government has paid the judgment now under administrative statute clearly says the definition of administrative office that is a withholding payment so by definition by saying by the government saying in this case we are not going to pay the judgment it has raised against paying a judgement which within the ancillary jurisdiction that the government can see that exists here so we have a judgment against the government the government is refusing to pay that judgment on the grounds that he believes stacy arrington and andrew banks owes debts that they can perform offsets again it's not a statutory challenge it's simply a question of whether the government can refuse what they got to the government paid the judgment or attorney's fees by awarding the plaintiffs credit against their outstanding  believe that's correct and the reason why is because again the definition the statutory definition of administrative law set is the withholding of payment not the paying of money so what the government has done here is the polar opposite of execution of judgments and says in that case that it would make no sense for a court to have jurisdiction to address the question where a court has entered judgment in favor of eight against to then say that the court had no jurisdiction to address the question of whether b has the judgment by paying a completely different part here what we have is the government paying part it's paying government led government creditors of the plaintiffs a power the attorneys involved here are also predators of the plaintiffs of power and so if the government wants to argue that in this case it is satisfy the judgment by paying a creditor rather than a basis potentially for a separate action the judgment set off fact is designed to be declaratory of certain fundamental rights of litigants when they have a judgment against the united states and it's designed to protect the separation of powers in terms of assuring that they are were they were going to have this offset for their prior debts and it also seems clear from the record that they to not follow the procedure that was given to them from the department of treasury if they wanted procedure by which these judgments against the united states which is what you should judgment is by definition how they may be offset by the government and under that statute it's not the onus is not on the litigant to contest the government's conflict of interest even arguing no your honor i don't believe that we do have a conflict of interest because it's important to recognize as the courts have held in dealing with each other the function of naval against to pay their attorneys otherwise against a judge and then a lot of attorneys planes establishes that there is a lack of mutuality to the extent that the government wants to take a judgment it might have against a litigant on the one hand and offset it against the lean encumbered judgment on the other that the other problem is that if you think about it as a kind of a co equal balance when it comes to jurisdiction what the government's argument essentially here is that when it goes to a district court and says it in the can in the air and of  proceeding we have a right to offset right that into your judgment we have a right to invalidate the assignment under the m p s i'm attacked right that it's your judgment and there's jurisdiction to do that then the government says well on the other hand there isn't  standard in play when it comes to jurisdiction where the government gets to make all the opposite arguments that it wants or all the assignment arguments that it wants and prevail on them but then all of a sudden the jurisdiction disappears when that against or their attorney arguments against withhold that is equally mandatory and so i don't think the mandatory nature of that can be ground  when the government argued asterisk's rappler to the supreme court it said the language of egypt is plain and clear it must be followed it may be inconvenient for litigants and their attorneys but we have to follow the plain language well thank you very much caution thank you