disappointment by the state of new hampshire on the ground that i'd violated roots of conduct namely that i had disobeyed a court order and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law the next thing that happened massachusetts on reciprocal discipline also disport me was personally i think we have all these facts from the briefs yes but the question is what was decided by the district court what is before us was the case before the district court final and therefore you have a right to appeal to us at this time of the supreme court has ruled that proper a status can be appealed to this court prejudice that there are some conditions that applied to impoverish status for example if you bring a frivolous case or if you bring a malicious case you're not untied in the proper steps but it isn't without prejudice and just doesn't without prejudice in jest that you could have made a different fuller showing the district court in the district court might have rule differently on your motion understand without prejudice to mean that mike in fact the district court specifically said my case was not malicious and that it was not frivolous and that was the way i interpreted their statement without prejudice  didn't district court give you an opportunity to meet he bet her showing a match or entitle him to i have peace that i don't believe so your honor i believe that the decision of the district court was final with respect to several matters but without prejudice to say yes it was without prejudice means you could have brought it again with a different set of facts but did you did you pay the fame presumably did no i have not paid the fee i pa that my point was interlocutory but when i cited the decision of the supreme court saying that i was entitled to appeal a denial of proper status the patent office agreed with me on only that issue on that issue but in the district court on against the director of the patent office well it is my understanding that the supreme court has ruled that i'm a title to make this appeal and when i in fact initially the argument by the patent office was that this is int it and when i called the supreme court decision to their attention they agreed with me that i could pursue the submittal to retire the problem is that that was not a case in which the motion was denied without prejudice i understand your i have the denial here without prejudice there are a variety of cases and lots of different areas only that you know this visit is a big complaint without prejudice or not find this seemed to give you the opportunity to go that is provided and authorized and required by the district court i had submitted that document and it was on the basis of that document but my status was denied since i had complied with the law in submitting  document setting forth my finances and my condition and the fact that i was unemployed i believe that it was improper for the for the for the district court to deny my status and i assume that when they denied it without prejudice it was because the patent office had argued that my cases were frivolous and malicious and the district court rejected those cretans you still have a cla case is after after i was vindicated in my opinion by new york and new jersey the patent office nevertheless decided to follow new hampshire ignoring what had originally the patent office decided to follow new hampshire and excluded me from practice now after they did that i proceeded under a local rule  eighty seven point three of the federal district court here in the district of columbia that required that i file a petition with the court and i did that i did that within ten days and i complied with all the requirements for that petition i also checked with the clerk of the district for a method of service and i was told to serve by ordinary mail and i did that but the patent office and the department of justice did not respond right rather confusing but i filed two cases in the district court i filed two petitions in the district court but the final the first petition when i was denied proctors so what about the case in other words i have i have two claims in the in the district court i filed the first petition that involve the commissioner of patents but them at the time of the decision of the commissioner of patents was handed down i asked for reconsideration well the patent office didn't rule on my reconsideration until about a year later so i filed a second petition to the effect that that denial of my request f reconsideration was also in iraq so i had to petitions i filed two petitions in the federal district court now for the first petition i had paid the fee for the second petition i applied simultaneously for proper stat sleep private and not the kind of information the reasonable person would want to put on the public record let's just assume they said if we're going to get this filing the way you have to show us this this and this so you're saying that in order to get that challenge it's incumbent upon and if they file at the district court decided in without prejudice then sure he could cure it arguably by coming forward with that information but in the absence of under that situation if the court were district court were to refuse for example to allow them to file the information under seal and the court insisted that the court was going to put the information on a public record then the question of whether that information is on the public record would be final which is certainly more than three hundred fifty dollars so that alone suggests that it is possible for him to pay but he does not make a showing about how this would leave him materially and obviously cannot afford a necessity so what we don't have a description of what he pays for the necessities more information to me what's the problem with providing some i wasn't asking if i had more information i provided the information required by them to be more he would it would you be willing to supply more information well i've supplied more information in my brief to this court so the answer is yes he would be more i would be willing but i wasn't asked to supply more information based on the information required by the district court my application for proper status was denied and i say that was improper and i believe that i'm entitled to have that claim heard by this court now in addition to that the district court also dismissed part of my case so that part of my case is final as to that dismissal and i would like to have that reconsidered as well responding to my petitions the patent office took the position that i had a procedure not a roof will rule for doesn't apply to petitions because i had to proceed on the roof or that converted my petitions to civil actions and because they were converted to civil actions i amended the original petition to include civil action claims and those claims were dismissed because the trial court the district court said that i had not served  the the defendants in most cases well i have observed sort of the vendors in those cases because the patent office was taking the position that my entire case should be dismissed so it seems to me that i should be intitled once once sleep position of the patent office is rejected that my case should be dismissed i should be entitled to serve the additional defendants that i had named in the civil action