Legal Case Summary

Good morning everyone. Before I begin I want to publicly thank and acknowledge Justice San Jose O'Connor for graciously agreeing to sit with us here these cases and and help us out with the entire court. I appreciate that and I know the entire legal community even beyond that the city of Philadelphia appreciates your presence and your your criticism and graciousness. Thank you it's a pleasure to be in the third circuit. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the third circuit to have you that's for sure. First matter is our Ray versus Reed

. Good morning your honors and I'm not going to be doing the argument for name is Ezra Rosenberg from Deckert and we wanted to thank the court for granting leave to permit Angela Briggs and Richard Slaven who are Penn Law School students to present the argument on behalf of the Pellan today. Thank you very much. Good morning. May it please the court. My name is Angela Briggs and I represent the appellant Frederick T Ray on this matter. I'd like to reserve one and a half minutes for a bottle. Okay

. I will be addressing the first issue of exhaustion and my colleague Richard Slaven will be addressing the second issue on the requirements of USC 1915 B. You're exhaustion argument sounds a lot like futility in the case of us says that futility does not apply under the P. L. A. to excuse the failure to exhaust why aren't you basically arguing futility is opposed to something beyond that. This isn't a futility argument we're essentially asserting that in this case they actually did not allow my client to proceed through the grievance process so it based on the P. L

. R. A. that made the requirement unavailable to him. So if I can direct the court to the prison policy that I will be addressing on three reasons why that the exhaustion requirement wasn't required in this case the first is that the policy unambiguously does not require or even provide for an appeal of the work to an inmate has been denied the official inmate complaint form. Second Mr. Ray exhaust to the administrative process because he submitted at least four inmate request slips specifically requiring we submitted them to the grievance officer I guess but not to the warden. No he submitted to the grievance officer and if I can direct the court to the the policy on pounded to an appendix 31 I want to highlight two aspects of this policy and based on the PLRA the policy the policy did not know he's offered time while that's okay we just took five seconds away from you I'll give you five seconds back

. Thank you Your Honor. If I can point again the court to the prison policy they're there two important parts of this policy that I want to highlight the first is that there's inmate request slip and there's an official inmate complaint form. Now what the crux of this issue in this case is whether or not Mr. Ray was required to appeal and we submit that he was not required to appeal the denial of the official inmate complaint form that appeal process is only attached to what is proceeding after the official inmate complaint form. As I understand this policy it's set up so that there can be a preliminary screening by the grievance officer to eliminate eliminate totally frivolous grievances from even getting into the system. That is correct that's the inmate request. You're right and why doesn't it eliminate that process you're saying that either if the form is not given that there should be some procedure in there for appealing the failure to give a form is that what you're arguing? I'm saying that the policy simply does not address what to do in the event that the inmate is denied that form it simply addresses what to do after an inmate has gone through the official inmate complaint form and proceeded through an investigation

. Isn't the obvious thing then to do is simply to write to the warden your client has previously written to the warden why couldn't you write to the warden now? If I can point again the court to J-A-103 and there you will see that he wrote there that he attempted previously to address the warden he says specifically I have mailed it in form of complaints and the to the the warden who remains unresponsive. So in and that. Are you telling us then on this record we can see that he appealed to the warden? I know. He's he's speaking the the slip is unclear but it what is clear is that he attempted one time previously to step outside of the bounds of the policy and was unsuccessful and if that was not in connection with this particular thing. No so but so in this particular complaint he did nothing to go to the warden about any failure. He did not because the policy specifically does not require that he does so. Yeah but if he wants to get something done isn't the way to do it simply to go to the warden

. I think what he did do is he attempted to abide by the policy he fight he found at least 15 in-may request gains is what he's doing. Your Honor I believe he by following 15 in-may request slips and on two of those in-may request slips he specifically states that he's trying to exhaust pursuant to the PLRA. He he says on four in-may request slips please provide form that information coupled with the fact that he previously had stepped outside of the bounds and wrote to the warden and who remained unresponsive he was left with nothing to do at that point. He was left to write to the warden. That was all that he was left with. But the policy in itself what the exhaustion of the exhaustion requirement is based on the prison policy and the the crux of this issue is whether or not he was required to appeal and appeal is only required after the inmate has received findings and in this case findings is only attached to what occurs after the official inmate complaint form findings in itself even a simple black black law book definition or Webster definition is that a findings denotes a process an investigation that has occurred with the inmate request slip there is simply a review the grievance officers just. He sent was it February 4th he sent a letter to the two deputy wardens and to the warden

. Yes and was that letter the thing that was immediately preceding him saying and response he got savior and savior income. Yes and then he went into court. No there were several grievances that followed that afterwards the grievances where he discussed the PLRA followed that as well. He never appealed to the warden. He never pelt to the warden because it wasn't required for him to do and when he had previously it was unsuccessful. That's the issue here isn't it though was that that was required. Right right right right that was required and it was not required

. It was not required to decide whether he had to appeal to the warden writer. Yes yes your honor and and I submit that he wasn't required to pick up the order not only because not only because of the issues that I stated before that you say some time for a bottle I believe. Yes okay just to conclude your honor. Thank you very much. Good morning. Please court Thomas Abramson representing Mr. Reed and Madonna and the Chester County prison

. There's no argument that the Chester County prison has a grievance policy. There's no argument that Mr. Bray didn't know about it. There's no argument that Chester County took any affirmative action to prevent him from fully exhausting the policy available. Well why isn't this save your ink memo similar to the specialist circumstances that we have in hempful in the second circuit in our case in Brown which sets up in a stopper basically to preclude you from our green exhaustion. Why isn't that response back equivalent to that? Because in the first case that's addressing a complaint from 2003 and he's not telling Mr. Bray

. Mr. Rays already written to the warden. He's saying stop pestering us stop making repeated requests we've given it to our attorneys we're working on it. He's not that save your ink doesn't say don't write to the warden he's already written to the warden at that point. Well said the entire county's that memo we was we've received your communications it's in the hand of our attorneys save your ink. Right stop pestering us basically we're working on it. And I think in hempful they talk about special circumstances that would put a reasonable person in this person's position would cause that person to believe that it would be useless to take any further action which is why I asked this breaks about the futility argument. Well I would say this to you if you look at this it doesn't say don't write to the warden it doesn't say don't file grievances it says save your ink because we've gotten your submissions we've given them to our attorney it's being looked into we'll get back to you stop writing over and over again saying what's the status what's the status we're working on it our attorneys get a grievance form. Part me. Did he ever in this series that we're talking about here the two consolidated cases here did he ever get a grievance form. Well he never got what's called an official he never got this although he never he never got an official inmate complaint form. Yeah I asked for that I asked them to send it to me and they did why wouldn't they send that to him wouldn't that a simple enough thing to do. Well if you look at the policy. There's a pro size of playing games

. Well I would say this to you if you look at this it doesn't say don't write to the warden it doesn't say don't file grievances it says save your ink because we've gotten your submissions we've given them to our attorney it's being looked into we'll get back to you stop writing over and over again saying what's the status what's the status we're working on it our attorneys get a grievance form. Part me. Did he ever in this series that we're talking about here the two consolidated cases here did he ever get a grievance form. Well he never got what's called an official he never got this although he never he never got an official inmate complaint form. Yeah I asked for that I asked them to send it to me and they did why wouldn't they send that to him wouldn't that a simple enough thing to do. Well if you look at the policy. There's a pro size of playing games. Now if you look at the policy that form is not always going to be utilized for example. That's no answer to the question if he asks for it why not send it to him isn't that the simplest way. Well he never if you look at his grievance requests he never identifies that form by name. It doesn't matter. Are you playing games too. You know it's really suggesting that inmate should give you the specific commonwealth Pennsylvania form number for the form. No I'm just saying that he was he was never thwarted in his attempt to write to the warden

. Now if you look at the policy that form is not always going to be utilized for example. That's no answer to the question if he asks for it why not send it to him isn't that the simplest way. Well he never if you look at his grievance requests he never identifies that form by name. It doesn't matter. Are you playing games too. You know it's really suggesting that inmate should give you the specific commonwealth Pennsylvania form number for the form. No I'm just saying that he was he was never thwarted in his attempt to write to the warden. Oh I didn't why didn't they send him the form. I didn't believe it was necessary. They didn't in one instance they said you know we've you've already grieved this. Oh and Sam go on sand basically. And he can and and that's a finding. That's a conclusion. What's the conclusion by the grievance of ink is a finding

. Oh I didn't why didn't they send him the form. I didn't believe it was necessary. They didn't in one instance they said you know we've you've already grieved this. Oh and Sam go on sand basically. And he can and and that's a finding. That's a conclusion. What's the conclusion by the grievance of ink is a finding. No that you what where's the finding in this case. Well here on J88 Mr. Ray your request for grievances denied. You removed your legal materials because of your misusing the legal materials. That's Captain Wilson's finding. When was that that was January 29th of 04 Captain Wilson signed that there's there's no reason Mr. Ray in response to that

. No that you what where's the finding in this case. Well here on J88 Mr. Ray your request for grievances denied. You removed your legal materials because of your misusing the legal materials. That's Captain Wilson's finding. When was that that was January 29th of 04 Captain Wilson signed that there's there's no reason Mr. Ray in response to that. All he had to do was submit this document and right on the bottom I appeal to the warden. But is that the document he's trying to get? Now well I don't know that he's I don't know that he ever but what is this document? You said submit this document and now you hold on for different form. Yeah. What is this document that he had to submit to appeal to the warden right. The any form he needed to get to appeal the finding. Anything. No he doesn't he doesn't need the complaint form to appeal to the warden

. All he had to do was submit this document and right on the bottom I appeal to the warden. But is that the document he's trying to get? Now well I don't know that he's I don't know that he ever but what is this document? You said submit this document and now you hold on for different form. Yeah. What is this document that he had to submit to appeal to the warden right. The any form he needed to get to appeal the finding. Anything. No he doesn't he doesn't need the complaint form to appeal to the warden. He didn't need any particular form. No. Just something that said I appeal to you warden. Right. He could have put it on a plain piece of paper and said I appeal Captain Wilson's decision on January 29th 04. I appeal to the warden puts it in the outbox on his block and that goes to Captain Wilson and Captain Wilson. I don't want his letter suffice

. He didn't need any particular form. No. Just something that said I appeal to you warden. Right. He could have put it on a plain piece of paper and said I appeal Captain Wilson's decision on January 29th 04. I appeal to the warden puts it in the outbox on his block and that goes to Captain Wilson and Captain Wilson. I don't want his letter suffice. But why doesn't his letter suffice? The letter sent to the Captain to the warden. Well he should have that's a different grievance. That's a completely different grievance than what he was raising in January of 04. So my question to him would be why didn't you you've got a different grievance procedure going you've written to the warden before during the grievance procedure do it again it's easy just right on a piece of paper. I for it Ray appeal Captain Wilson's decision January 29th 04 to the warden. But in the alpha procedure you know it's not set in the policy that's the procedure that the institution will expect the inmate to use if you ask for a grievance form no form is tendered to the inmate in response to that request you're saying that the expected behavior then of expected responses you send a letter to the warden or basically appealing the fact that you didn't get your given. It's a very very informal procedure

. But why doesn't his letter suffice? The letter sent to the Captain to the warden. Well he should have that's a different grievance. That's a completely different grievance than what he was raising in January of 04. So my question to him would be why didn't you you've got a different grievance procedure going you've written to the warden before during the grievance procedure do it again it's easy just right on a piece of paper. I for it Ray appeal Captain Wilson's decision January 29th 04 to the warden. But in the alpha procedure you know it's not set in the policy that's the procedure that the institution will expect the inmate to use if you ask for a grievance form no form is tendered to the inmate in response to that request you're saying that the expected behavior then of expected responses you send a letter to the warden or basically appealing the fact that you didn't get your given. It's a very very informal procedure. Where's that anywhere in this policy what you just said was the policy where is that anywhere in this policy you don't get a form the procedure is to then inform the warden you didn't get a form. It says that you can appeal any finding. It also says that you want to visit if you don't get a form that's not a finding how do you appeal that this is a finding. How do you how do you appeal the decision of the grievance officer not to give you a form. If he got a if he can write on here what's the here is that a form he could he could put on an inmate request slip I want the official form if that said denied he could say I appeal that to the warden give me the form that's all he has to do. I can what are you holding up is that is it made for you to get this is in the record used to get the grievance from the given. This is the first step to invoke the grievance process he files this and says I have a grievance now did he file one of those yes he filed 15 of these

. Where's that anywhere in this policy what you just said was the policy where is that anywhere in this policy you don't get a form the procedure is to then inform the warden you didn't get a form. It says that you can appeal any finding. It also says that you want to visit if you don't get a form that's not a finding how do you appeal that this is a finding. How do you how do you appeal the decision of the grievance officer not to give you a form. If he got a if he can write on here what's the here is that a form he could he could put on an inmate request slip I want the official form if that said denied he could say I appeal that to the warden give me the form that's all he has to do. I can what are you holding up is that is it made for you to get this is in the record used to get the grievance from the given. This is the first step to invoke the grievance process he files this and says I have a grievance now did he file one of those yes he filed 15 of these. So what's missing he should have written to the warden like the policy says he should have said all he had to do he could have written this on a blank form he could have written on a piece of paper he could have written on this form I appeal to the warden give it to Captain Wilson Captain Wilson is obligated to give that to the warden. He had done that before is that not correct in O3 he indicates that he can remember back to O3 I'm not sure I can. Yeah at J-103 which council cited he says that he has written to the warden 12-4 of O3 and he wrote to the two deputy warden. I didn't hear that. December 4-0-3 at J-103 he submits an inmate request slip basically saying what's going on with my complaint and he indicates that he's written to the then warden John masters deputy warden McFadden deputy warden Brustin now this all predates the January instance that caused him to file a complaint in the fit lower court so he wrote to them so apparently he he done it before I don't know why he wouldn't do it again in January of O4 the policy that you're laying out here is it's I'm looking at your policy now who need me handbook and what you're describing to me doesn't really seem to fit within the policy that isn't that in me handbook. Well there's nothing in the it's not that technical the process there's nothing the policy says if you don't submit form B you cannot appeal. But you know this year and I was sick with miss Briggs that you've you've exhausted your time to I'll take another look at the policy and maybe I'm missing something with it thank you

. Thank you honor. The policy digs takes that it inmate is required to appeal the finding if you look at the policy the word finding is replaced after an investigation investigative process has occurred that process is only occurring after the inmate has received the official inmate complaint form from the grievance officer there's nothing at all in the policy that says he should informally write somewhere on an inmate request that he wants to appeal what the policy does say however is that he will provide an inmate request slip the grievance officer if he wants to proceed will provide him with an official inmate complaint form on the six sentences says after which the grievance officer will investigate after which he will furnish with you a written explanation after that receives its findings so their findings is only attached the official inmate complaint form if the prison if it was the prison's intention for him to be able to deny the to appeal the denial of request slip they could have simply stated that after the third sentence he's right as this is not a difficult thing they could have simply said after the denial of an inmate request slip you have the right to appeal you have the requirement to appeal they did not say that if they did we wouldn't be here today I didn't get the feeling until this argument that there was any provision in there to appeal the denial of the request slip I'm sorry can you repeat that I didn't get the feeling until this discussion that there was any provision in the policy to deny the decision to not give the inmate a grievance form I don't see that in the policy correct your honor it's completely absent thank you thank you morning your honors may please the court my name is Richard Slaven I represent the pellant Frederick Ray on the statutory interpretation issue I like to reserve a minute and a half for a bottle okay the issue today is the proper taxation for court costs for a prisoner litigant under 28 US code 1915 B when that prisoner has brought multiple actions or appeals I like to move to the language of the statute which appears on page 35 of our brief I want to focus on both the language and the purpose behind the statute both of which compelled his court to adopt the per prisoner approach to filing fees the per prisoner approach would cap the month-to-month payments for the prisoner litigant at 20% of his monthly income regardless of the number of actions or appeals pending and what do you see that in the text of the statute what do you how do you read this language to get the per prisoner cap 1915 B two your honor says after payment of the initial partial filing fee the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding months income credit to the prisoners account we ask your honors to use this word shall here as we said a discretionless obligation to mean that only 20% of the inmates account can be garnished that's not what it says though you used the word only in there that Congress didn't provide you help Congress out a little bit and you put limiting adverb they didn't see fit to put in there well your honor the government's position is that the statute should say for each case pending and that's not what the statute says either agree i'm not sure what the statute says so in that case what do we do to figure out what Congress intended okay in answering that how does 1915 i think it's g the the uh provision the three strikes in your out provision the last both sides this question how if at all does that provision factor into our interpretation of the 20% well when it comes to congressional intent uh there is the argument i'm sorry i just laughed at the thought the purpose behind the PLRA was indeed determining prisoners from filing frivolous actions and to do that the Congress believed that making prisoners pay the amount the full amount of filing fee as well as creating this specter of the three strikes rule would discourage prisoners from filing frivolous litigation as one we adapt to your interpretation as i think was the second sort of it said basically uh after the first filing they get a free ride you can file as many complaints after that as you want to because you're going to beat your cost your cost will be kept at 20% well that is the month among payment of fees there's also the initial partial filing fee which at the commencement of rejection the prisoner will have to pay 20% of his inmate account and moreover uh 1915 b1 makes clear that in no circumstantial the prisoner not pay the full amount of the filing fee the question here is one of timing are there any objective records as to how much prisoners have in their accounts uh not that i have in the record below uh Mr. Ray's inmate account uh has varied and it's uh from what to what uh i don't recall the lower end the higher end was around a hundred dollars what's the practice in the other circuits on the per case fee so the second and the fourth circuit are the two circuits which have adopted the excuse me the second and the fourth circuits have adopted the per prisoner approach the fifth seventh eighth and tenth have adopted the per case fee um i believe that it is if a prisoner has two actions or appeals pending then that would be 40% of his account uh the income to his account if it's three cases 60% now why isn't that consistent with what you said earlier was the policy behind the statute because and no point in statute is congress specify number higher than 20% it simply says he will pay 20% of his income the get out of the court because they could have said more they could have said less the other the issue is 20% based on what they step on a single person of frowling or based upon each following the single person makes 20% is just seems to me like an arbitrary number that they've walked in with it may very well have been but they could have tried it exact a much larger pound of flesh than the 20% but they didn't do that and we don't know why they picked 20% but the more logical approach is just to apply it to each time a prisoner files and that's kind of how it reads i don't know why you'd want to stretch things and say there's a one-time limit there's some benefit to be obtained by encouraging prisoners to lump everything in the first filing and not think they can come in week after week with a new one and pay nothing more uh you're on the there is the initial partial filing fee so when prisoners commence their action they're already paying 20% of the remade account well they ought to pay it every time they come in is how i read the statute they pay they do pay the initial partial filing fee each time they come in at issue is the month-to-month payments well that follows the initial fee doesn't it the for each case there are different purposes uh your honor between behind the initial partial filing fee and the month-to-month fee the initial partial filing fee is about making the prisoners stop and think before filing a frivolous action whereas the month-to-month fee is about paying the total fees that they've uh incurred i see that i am out of time if you're honest have any questions well you went quite out to him but you are now thank you nice to know mr. Slaven may it please the court Brian Goldman for the United States section 1915 governs an individual courts authority to allow an individual litigant to proceed i fp in an individual case the statute has always operated on a per case basis and congress did nothing to not in all circuits though has it second circuit doesn't do it that way prior to um sorry you're on it prior to 1996 when subsection b was added the statute has always operated on a per case basis and my point is simply that congress did nothing to alter the per case operation of the statute when it added subsection b well does the state not follow the united states on this i think it's a little strange that the state doesn't follow your um analysis of this statute i'm sorry and i'm not sure how am i not correct that i shouldn't put it that way uh the state hasn't followed the united states position on this right in in in what respect your honor i'm it just doesn't agree does it i i'm not aware of of the state having a position on this and i i apologize if i'm not if i'm missing something there i'm not aware of it either i hope you'll file something with this court to indicate what the state the different states positions are on it if they differ from the US you know 28j with a copy too you're opposed to council certainly i i'm not aware of what you can do the research yes yes absolutely absolutely wrong um certainly i want to answer the question that i asked mr slave in the interplay between 1915 g in this section because it seems like the three strikes rule accomplishes the policy that you're arguing and asking us to interpret this on a purpose and basis and if that's true why would they do why would they do it both ways why would they set up a three strikes rule in 1915 g to limit number of frivolous appeals and then intend to draft this fee statute in such a way as to limit the number of frivolous appeals well chief judge mcci i believe that there are two different ways to accomplish the same purpose which is to discourage filing legally insufficient suits while not attempting to deter the filing of potentially meritorious suits one way to do that is to put in place a filtering mechanism based on economic incentives which is what subsection b does the other is to put in place a special provision for prisoners who over a period of time have run afoul of of the policy to deter um to deter suits that that runs good there can be too broad to do that because that's going to have a showing fact on any lawsuit not just frivolous suits if an inmate has a suit that he or she believes to be meritorious the fact of the looming filing fees hanging overhead is going to chill the filing of that suit no matter how meritorious he or she may think it is and on the other hand you've got this subsection g over there so that if it's clearly frivolous if it's the kind of suit where it's clear that the inmates playing games inmates going to know if i file more of those suits it's going to put a notch up on the totem and i'm going to sooner or later by not have the ability to file a suit so when i get to the day when i really do have a legal complaint i'm not going to be able to bring it to court well i disagree that it has a chilling effect in a manner other than the chilling effect that then the deterrent effect i should say that that Congress intended which which was to recalibrate the incentives because congress had found that the incentives were misaligned prior to the PLRA and so congress wanted to recalibrate those incentives in order to discourage the filing of legally insufficient suits so if prisoners if because of these new economic incentives prisoners choose not to bring suits that are insufficient then that is that is the policy working but if you you put in the word that are insufficient because they it may also in my hypothetical last not the only kind of suit they would decide not to bring they may decide not to bring suits that the entire criminal justice system may be better off if they were adjudicated well i i suppose that by design any system of incentives operates on the entire class of potential suits because there's no way to know upfront whether a suit is going to be meritorious or not so the idea is you put in place a screening mechanism that sets the incentive so that only those litigants with potentially meritorious suits will choose to go forward and it it it it moves that choice to the litigant to actually take a look at the merits of the potential suit and make a decision in in congresses terms of whether the suit is worth the price and and so if i could just turn back to the text of the statute a penalty acknowledges that subsection b1 applies on a per case basis which means that each time a prisoner files a new action or appeal he must make an initial partial filing fee payment well then subsection b2 must apply per case as well because the payment of that initial partial filing fee is the only triggering condition in the statute for the monthly payments that follow and it doesn't matter what other payments a prisoner might be making simultaneously because the statute simply makes no reference to those other payments will be to talks about not find this person they talk about the preceding months income credited to the prisoner's account they can't possibly have meant income because these accounts they technically earn income I will assume but the income is absolutely divinimous the income that an account of the value of a hundred dollars or ten or fifteen dollars would have is negligible well it it it it's an amount that's calibrated to the prisoner's individual financial conditions so rather than impose an absolute amount congress did indeed mean to to base the fee for each the the amount of the monthly payment for each prisoner as a percentage of that prisoner's income for each case and an answer to judge slow voters earlier is being his prisoners income not the accounts income that's what you're saying yes you're on the amount credited credited to the prisoner's account well you're in any question well he was about to say something about the question if I may or honor I was just going to answer judge slow voters question about the the actual amounts that we're discussing here so in in the Bureau of Prison's system I I can't speak to the the county system particularly but in the Bureau of Prison's the median inmate has a an average balance of around fifty dollars and the median in the median inmates monthly income is around twenty five dollars so we're talking about five dollars a month in terms of 20 percent of that of that income and around ten dollars for the initial partial filing fee thank you thank you did you also reserve did you also reserve time I don't we call if you do okay she's judging my key going back to your point about the three structural it does exist to deter frivolous suits and as a prisoner of contemplates filing an action he has to stop and think about is this frivolous am I going to get a strike against me if I have two strikes am I going to be completely thrown out of informal popperies and then there's a 20 percent cap month a month that would that allows for a reasonable method of payment over time while still allowing prisoners to have an inmate account and as I said we don't know why Congress chose 20 percent but they clearly wanted inmates to have some money left over at the end of their filing suits but there would no matter which interpretation is correct there's a flow of ten dollars there will be some money left in this account no matter which provision which which reading is correct uh you're on it says that the the 1915 B2 which referring to the second sentence says that the agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the from the prisoners account to the clerk of the court each time the amount and the account exceeds ten dollars until filing fees are paid right so once it but it's ten dollars below they don't debit the account under some section too it's only ten dollars and one cent and then they can take a deduction yes you're on it and potentially however if it's ten dollars and one cent and the prisoner has two or three actions that would be 40 40 percent or 60 percent of the ten dollars which goes down to I don't understand the math for that but 60 percent you know you're on a 60 percent you still can't go below ten dollars right it says that the the payments shall be forwarded each time the amount in the account exceeds ten dollars not down to ten dollars well thank you thank you take the matter and the advisement we thank council and soon to be council for very very helpful thank yo