march of two thousand and fourteen just over four years ago i would suggest to the court that the position taken by the department of justice who is the in that it cannot satisfy the mandate for two reasons a temporal reason and a substantive reason the temporal reason is that the court said that there was going to be a reasonable time given not to the u s government but to brazil which it represented to comply but to get a twenty four sixty seven enforcement or the government's contention and the district court below accepted the notion that a twenty four sixty seventy three protective  satisfied that condition even though that doesn't give anyone a right to property that is the substantive component of the violation of the amended even mario a lot of weight on the second circuit's use of the word and for in in the context where the courts whole point was that the twenty four sixty seven issue was not before why should we parse that opinion as if it were faction and try to make these fine judgments about an issue that wasn't before them so the issue before the court in the in or put or actually before this court on bandanas is ultimately the rest it was in custodial letters in the court's custody and so the determination of who would ultimately receive custody of the records in this case the money had to be determined and the court said we want this determined in a reasonable period of time and so in order for that to terminate her to go to court said the penal law rule to resolve the case correctly and it sign it back for twenty four sixty seven issues to be worked out and if the second circuit had never issued the mandate it would have been very easy for brazil to get a a d three order right one had already been issued for the five years proceeding right up later the court was well aware of the history and said you have a reasonable period of time to get an execution so twenty four sixty seven is titled and force ultimately your honor if the court comes down that you have the court of the title to interpret it that way but the way that i read mandamus case law is that when there is a an alleged violation of the mandate it is court's job to interpret the prior decision both as to its spirit and its to its letter and so when you look at the context of this case this case has been in three circuit courts this is the for the third circuit told the government to give the money back the second circuit said you have brazil has a reasonable period of time to get an execution order brazil isn't even here so we have a very awkward procedural setting when have you or this court ever seen an inner pleader plain what what would be the legal basis for the second circuit saying that the legal basis was that the government is in essence a stopped to the procedure that it instituted which is this in or pleader so if the government was going to say to the court you determine who owns this money then it doesn't get to continue to advocate in the inner pleader which by the way brazil isn't even represented one of the bases for which we believe that their answer should be stricken and really should be granted but to the extent that we were of new york in two thousand and twelve was entered on the notion that there was already a final judgment from brazil that was a representation made by both brazil and the department of justice on that basis judge chris a granted summary judgment we got to the second circuit they said oh wait a minute it's not quite file it was final enough to see can obtain summary judgment but it wasn't final enough for twenty four sixty seven so it was final in the sense that we would describe a judgment pending on appeal your honor they moved for summary judgment in an inappropriate proceeding which the second circuit ultimately determined to be the case they set in or pleader isn't the right method in and of itself to determine ownership of the funds and so what they said is look you've got one chance to do this within a reasonable period of time no one is disputing that forty years plus is not a reasonable period of time so what they did on the eve of the determination of what that reasonable time was which was november third two thousand and fourteen that's what judge forrest told brazil on the eve of that ex parte they went to a different circuit in a different district and push pause for literally the third time they're playing a legal shell game with the various federal courts in which they've been in front of and this short court should not countenance that if as a private litigant i went to a different circuit and sought ex parte relief i'm confident that would not go well for me yet the government has done that time and again in two thousand four the district of new jersey ordered them to return the funds to kasten and said there is no finding of all thirty go you haven't established it they pushed pause for the first time and then they went to the interplay direction which  that the determination of the ownership of the funds is determined on the day the inner pleader is files two thousand and ten were here at eight years later we have our judgment creditor we're entitled to fidelity we're asking that there pleadings be struck that is brazil's who is not even representing itself and that we proceed to judgment in honors please the court along with jennifer wallace of the united states money as michael holmes the i'd like to pick up really where we just left off it is incorrect to suggest that that brazil had said to the district court that they had a final and for civil order the district court's decision granting summary judgment to the to brazil specifically says brazil does not seek immediate release of the venous funds to the brazilian government rather  transfer the transfer of the funds to the sale pollo court where the money will be held pending the adjudication of the pier is defendants appeals that's the district court decision the circuit court completely understood that if you look at page ten of the circuit court decision the circuit court says that they describe the brazil request as quote to hold pending resolution of the appeal so everyone knew that there was not a final enforceable or wouldn't have had to dismiss after the tiger i case but we did have to dismiss after the tiger case because there wasn't a final of course and then congresswoman and then congress amended it so now we can do it under the d three we can do it based on  way restraining order the fact is though in this case we sought to enforce the brazilian restraining order so that if you want to be technical about the terms of force and we are to do that and force an action but if it is i don't want to i don't want to rely on that because substantively what we've done is we have done a preliminary restrain on this money pending the delivery of a final order certified that would be just i'm just curious so th tiger i was repealed by statute in two thousand and ten correct and the second circuit decision was some years later see it seems to me at any point from two thousand and ten going forward you could have gone you could have filed a d three because the law had been changed and you had a clear right to get a preservation order at that point we could have a why did we go for that is because it would be duplicative because the decision we believed that all of the issues would be resolved in the year two polluter until the second circuit told us this is not the appropriate vehicle to determine the ownership of this property and so once they said this is not the appropriate vehicle you must use twenty four sixty seven as the sole exemption to the people of the statute that's what we did let me make one other point about what the circuit court understands that you can concur with us that everyone has appropriately understood the mandate the mandate is best kind of fleshed out by the language of the circuit court opinion on page twenty five when they say we would like to send this back and we will give brazil a reasonable time to seek twenty four sixty seven action they then decide a case in re twelve million dollars that they and they because what they say is brazil knows perfectly well how to do this because they've done it before citation second i think it's page nineteen and it's that case brazil sought a restraining order under d three that case just like this case did not have a final enforceable order it was still under appeal in the brazilian court and so when the second circuit cites to it and says look brazil knows what it can do you know let's that up a reasonable time these sites to a case in which brazil has sought a restraining order not a final enforcement and so when it goes back to the district court in the southern district of new york that's precisely what that the court decided was contemplated by the courts mandate we concurred with the case was then transferred ultimately to the district of walked the district of d c the judge was asked once again no shouldn't we be required to provide a final judgment the answer is we're not in charge of the brazilian court docket and so coming up with a reasonable time for the brazilian courts to resolve what they consider to be the obligation of due process to resolve whether or not a defendant brazil is appropriately found guilty is not something that is going to click along with the district court's calendar in the in the district of d c and so they said we want you to file a restraining order we had we did process being provided in the court where the requests from which the request came and so we have followed this i think that the issue of what did everyone understand is the best filled in by looking in what the circuit court said which was we know this is subject to appeal and we also know that brazil knows how to protect itself citing a case in which we've sought a restraining order so we simply don't see  the defendants are going to be i mean the move his argument be supportive of the record if and i believe that there is no basis for this but if you do the work to determine that the mandate had been misunderstood the solution isn't to strike brazil's order and grant this agreement that the proof solution is to send it back with a mandate to the district court saying all right you understood it meant come up with a reasonable schedule in order to accomplish every straining order what we really want is to come up with a reasonable schedule to accomplish enforcement of the final nine appealable done order reasonable period of time not a final order not it and force of the order is over time if you conclude otherwise which i think is not supported by the record but if you do conclude otherwise the solution is to clarify the debate and say come up with a schedule for the final competing claims on our sort of pool of funds in this phoenix bank account what is the argument under which brazil might ultimately prevail as i understand it that the competition is between eight of b v i judgment that was domesticated in two thousand and ten and the brazilian forfeiture order that was rendered in two thousand trial court final judgment under the relation back doctrine which is the law both in the united states and in brazil it says that ownership vests the fund of the offense and so they would be the prior owner right mr reed for your honor i didn't answer your question well enough and my colleagues pointed out that it page forty five of the second circuits opinion they said we remand this case to the district court with instructions that it affords brazil and the attorney general a reasonable period of time to satisfy twenty four sixty seven's exception i want to focus on that word to that rule before reaching a final decision in the in or p d three protective order is not an exception to the penal law the only exception under twenty four sixty seven is an actual execution order which would give somebody a property right in answer to the question you asked a moment ago judge ca the priority of the u s judgment in two thousand and ten absolutely controls under u s law what the government of brazil have tried throughout is to mix and match brazilian law and u s law to the extent that they like the combination of those two laws there's no way to use relation back of brazilian law to change us in or the first judgment it's eight years on the basis on which you came up for mandamus was this interminable delay correct but we now have what in the twenty ha i think the brazilian appellate process has run its course so even on the government's view of things it would seem now that the inner pleader action is right for decision and the second circuit has made clear that all of these issues of whether your judgment prevails or not are still open so why would why would we jump in now what's your reparable injury now that everything is ready to go violation of the mandate has already occurred so in essence what they're asking this court is a second chance at another reasonable period of time so if this court this court certainly has the power to determine that a violation of the magic has occurred and with it it's all writs jurisdiction the power to issue any relief that's so the court has the power  say you brazil is a response to your question a moment ago as well brazil itself had the power to any point time was represented by baker hostile to follow the twenty four sixty seventy three application all the way back in two thousand and eleven and on that point we file the unfairly and ill legally in terms of what the proper use of an inner pleader a d three are restrain this money for eight years too long and the reality is that we've been entitled to it as a judgment creditor since two thousand and ten so it is certainly within this court's privative to send it back for around five in the district courts but i would argue that the brazil had their chance and they chose not even to appear and the party arguing for this money right now is still the wrong party the inner pleader plaintiff is said in two thousand and ten the us government you the u s courts can figure out where this money goes and at every point for eight years until today they have tried to direct this money to brazil so i  think the court has it has the issues we would ask that you find a violation of the mandate and put a fork in this i have any factual record was just wrong to separate the issues from seconds or and other circuit courts have said that is within the mandamus court's power to both interpret and inforced amended of prior decisions in fact the nine hundred seventy one you've won ski case out of this court was a case in which this court had said that a certain recusal or disqualification order as to counsel and the and the basis for it was justified it overruled the district court and said you can do that this disqualification or should have a read they went hired some other counsel which obviously wasn't  apologize it doesn't it doesn't add anything though i'm happy to read into the record once you read and read the appeal in the above caption case from an order of the united states district court for the southern district of new york was argued on the district court record and the party's briefs upon consideration thereof it is hereby ordered the judge into created the district court's order awarding summary judgment in favor of brazil is vacated and the case is remanded in accordance with