primary issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it only awarded bridgeport proximately one eighth of its fees and costs incurred in this action conclusively saying that that amount was sufficient to deter the attorneys wrongdoing without any analysis of how it arrived at that figure despite also finding that one of the accusations in both motions for fraud on the court did not have a basis in fact number two the information complained about not being supplied by bridgeport allegedly before the settlement arose had been in fact supplied in august fourteenth e mail to counsel that mr tennis mr reed both knew that this information was supplied at minimum  or all pardon me counsel those are all bases for sanctions right that you're listening now but you have an unsanctioned of the issues just how much from your perspective correct so under this court's precedent you say there's enough to deter isn't that kind of a subjective determination it is not your honor under this court's precedent in hate exceed johnson in rents v dynasty the court held that the district court must set forth its reasoning if it's going to reduce fees and in rent specifically the court found that without it were those rule twenty seven sanctions or were the attorneys who are involved have been sanctioned by this court and throughout the country in numerous cases this court itself your honor has sanctioned mr reid in homes the artist rights and the pharmacy records case both cited case two fifty nine f or d three seventy three northern district of indiana two thousand and nine the court specifically said that mr reid's practice involved flaunt as he slumps his misconduct throughout the country that he constantly re argues terminated claims in all these different case we've been saying and and he uses redundant claims as leverage and harassment as opposed to overzealous advocacy this is a pattern of conduct by these attorneys mr reed seven or eight different times throughout the countr sanctioned we cited these cases to the district court the district court did not address those the district court did not comment on that mr ten ish who's also been held libel jointly and severally mr reid has been sanctioned by this court in bridgeport vs smith he sanctioned the other case i'll be arguing today and in fact another case that we cited were his client filed seven pro se actions in tennessee and was sanctioned the court specifically believed that miss that counsel had been is it has not been explained how awarding the amount that was awarded in rents would be sufficient to deter these attorneys or others from engaging in similar misconduct likewise here he sort of facially true in the case of the minimus amounts when the well but twenty thousand dollars one when the attorneys have called it cost my clients to incur nearly three hundred eighty thousand dollars in both cases twenty thousand dollars per case one case was hundred out both cases i'm now well it's talking about the first case but even in this case we're discussing here it was one hundred fifty thousand dollars in fees the court awarded twenty thousand dollars is going to deter people from filing something that could be answered as easily as these these were not easily answered you wanted this to well this but we had to engage and they fought in this case we had to go through two or three different rounds of briefing we had to incur one hundred fifty thousand dollars in fees yes you pointed out you basically said the same thing right the court held each time i mean they file something it's can it's if there's an easy answer to it you make the easy answer does it really take a hundred fifty thousand dollars to do the court specifically held that our attorneys fees were reasonable it's an answer my question absolutely it did it may be it was reasonable in this case but in terms of the typical cases and twenty thousand dollars going to be enough to answer something like absolutely not you want to win you cause you need to explain to me why not wine because twenty thousand dollars is not a lot of money for practicing attorneys two and two when they're trying to for example in this case your honor as this court as the district court recognized the lawyers specifically contacted me and said that they demanded in order not to file an affidavit that the court found was irrelevant t that the affidavit was filed in both cases and i received a phone call from counsel saying that if if we did not pay him one million dollars in forty eight hours understanding this was part of the the other case it was it was filed in both cases your honor it was filed in both upon by the district court in this case i'm not sure it wasn't a lot among the district court in this case this were specifically said that the pen or affidavit that was filed was irrelevant did not have a basis in fact what the court said in the other case was that as part of granting sanctions that that was that that was improper or inappropriate and they continued to rot rely on that better affidavit but the point is that in both cases counsel for mr ten is i'm sure we i'm sure we side of the petter affidavit and we cited the court's opinion and the point is this under rents and hey it's this court the district court has to set forth why why the twenty thousand dollars would be sufficient to deter when we cited to the district court i guess i just have a little trouble knowing what he's supposed to say you ask him to say some words the book says it's the judgment of the district court who's  the litigation how much is going to deter this kind of activity so this is enough to deter it i mean it's like it's internally inconsistent turns it's not it's not like there has to be some specific amount that will stop a lawyer from doing something or it's specific this is the case law in this court says you have to set forth a reason it is inconsistent to say of the one hand i find that the filing of these motions were frivolous and you are entitled to reasonable tourney's these are findings on the one hand on the other hand then it's then to say submit your bill your affidavits your billing records your the fees that you incur are reasonable so you're entitled to reasonable fees your fees are reasonable reason there has to be an explanation is because he said originally you're going to get fees he can't reconsider that he didn't say he was reconsidering it he said we are this is enough your honor he did say this is enough he said it's not just for his her but without any without any reasoning without any analysis whatsoever i mean what we do you envision him saying in support of the deterrence conclusion he shouldn't he should analyze why when these lawyers have been sanctioned around the country in multiple cases and why they have done it went out years and pointed out the prior pattern to judge america absolutely we did and we and and for these lawyers who have been gauging this wrongdoing for many years mr reed specifically and has been cited by this court multiple times sanctioned by this court multiple times mr tenet has been sanctioned by this court in bridgeport for being i don't know if you need to convince us that more might have been appropriate he might have been appropriate for all these reasons you give we have a pretty deferential scope of review you shake your head but we do three thousand but the principle is that she didn't think twenty thousand was the minimum us the principle is that the district court has to articulate its reasoning and when it found that we are that these these cases were frivolous when we found that we were tied to reasonable fees when he submitted he asked us to submit our billing records when he then concluded that our records showed reasonable fees that were incurred to then turn around to say ok twenty thousand dollars is not to deter when the lawyers have used the the the courts of this country as their own personal a playground that if he said what you just said for the last ninety seconds and then and there for twenty thousand without a mint all right it would not have i would have been right because it would still would have been an abuse of discretion you  this panel's job to determine whether under the circumstances twenty thousand dollars is reasonable well i mean i mean caps and terms of sort of a determination but that's not what we're doing we're just deferentially looking enough even if you explain it in the others you didn't explain it well is asking you what assuming it was explain why isn't it enough and you suppose well because he didn't explain it that's not what i'm saying the question what i'm saying is this this court has held at least two different cases where a district court has found that the action was frivolous from inception total fees and costs should be awarded i cited those cases your honor i mentioned a moment ago here the district court found that hill total fees are where we where we raised them from up held the awarding of total fees and costs of holding right up holding is real different from reversing in under an abuse of discretion scope of review right there enough it's different but the point here is that he did not analyze anything any of the facts in order to reach a conclusion and had he done so had this if this court were to do that if this court were to review the facts that we set forth that these lawyers have been sanctioned throughout the country that these lawyers continue to do this what they have done here that these lawyers used stale claims in order to who worse a settlement of a million dollars or more that was undeserved that these lawyers in this case as remarked by the j court engage in this type of conduct as a mode of doing business that how in the world can twenty thousand dollars when you force someone to go through years of litigation and incur one hundred thousands of legal fees be determined i don't see how that's going to possible to reasonably conclude that ok thank you counsel says you got off easy i wish it were so your honor only wish it were so and and me emphasized first that twenty thousand dollars times two in both cases is not only a significant deterrent it's a shameful and serious blight i have been sanctioned regardless of the amount that's the stigma that i will carry that's the stigma that i don't when i push it the fact that i could come and speak to the panel this morning because this panel humbled chastened and fully recognizing the results of my own conduct in this action i want to speak to what's your appeal the appeal is is two parts first to respond to these issues just as we've heard in arguments about the seriousness of the allegations the the the points that were made all of those points were made before judge america in the district court court was in full command of the facts he was fully engaged in the process i would go a step further even though opposing counsel doesn't mention in one of the opinions the judge america issued he said that i  harassing bridgeport i accept that what it wasn't and we have not appealed the the fact of the sanction but that same district court judge based upon all the submissions that the in this case the bridgeport part parties and their attorneys put in affidavits all of the arguments we've heard all of the other issues of mr reed's sanctions and various other courts were he has been an attorney where i've not been an attorney with him all of that was before what judge america did was he issued he exercised the wide discretion that this court gives to these issues of sanctions and that's in the run fellow you're not appealing the sanctions are you i'm going to i'm going to talk about the cross i want to be i want to come across very contrite and humble because that's where i am but i want to talk about very briefly at the end of my arguments the issues of the cross appeal but the objective of both rule eleven and  twenty seven is to provide deterrence for future conduct not to compensate or make the other party whole i apologize for the situation i am responsible for it but deterrence has been achieved a sanction has been awarded a substantial amount of sanction in addition to the twenty thousand dollars in this first case and the twenty thousand dollars in the second case i personally was also sanction under nine hundred twenty seven an additional amount of five thousand dollars which was paid to the court i don't dispute if we assume for the moment that it was properly seen and will activity why in terms of rough justice should they pay three quarters of the cost of that because the deterrence the issue was deterrence has been achieved and you also see that they are not stopping their pursuit to be made whole as a put in in the briefing there's a there's a motion request for judicial notice the same parties there mr bush as the attorney have sued me in the open county circuit court for abuse of discretion and malicious prosecution relating to these very action to go into that court and say that they lose in this case because they already litigated in this case i do believe that there may be issues of double recovery in that case but that's for a different day and a different court if they want to see compensation to be made whole those are claims that they can pursue in state court but what we're here today is that we have a rule eleven sanction we have a section nine hundred twenty seven sanctions that are in it set forth in the briefing these are not fee shifting statute it's straight now by arguing that this is purely a  deterrence sanction and not a compensatory sanction that that makes it hard for you to say when you go into this other court that that these issues have been litigated and they can't get they can't get the other eighty percent right because it's a different issue i don't want to speaking out about sides here well i don't feel as though i'm speaking out of both sides my i know you're not now i just want to make sure you're not then i think that those are those are tort claims that were brought against me under under michigan law i mean there's going to be there's going to be a lot of follow that i from from the research i have done i do believe that these are separate issues that i'm saying is that what you're arguing for isn't a permanence of the amount and the basis for your argument to issue the sanction in the first instance it's the may twenty ninth two thousand and thirteen order it's in the record at one thirty eight and it specifically says the plainest put in all their evidence all their claims for for their fees and questions about all this it seems that the court is is not distinguishing at all between you and mr e for purposes of this sanction i gather that mr reed is the lawyer who had been sanctioned representing a number of musical artists and songwriters who may have claims against the various record labels including bridge board including motown records i actually had cases against mr reed and and it was through that both cases that were subject to the twenty thousand dollars reward they're both yours and i take full responsibility and i also want to say guess what i'm driving at have anything to do with those other cases genki case that absolutely not the the  and i have not been sanctioned across the country the only times i have ever been sanctioned and i and i the shame and stigma that comes with that regardless of the price you want to put on it if twenty thousand dollars is de minimus in the minds of some people it's not to to me the sanction the stigma is anderson exponentially higher than the anger on that but no i was not part of any of these cases with attorney reed in any other parts of the of the of the country i've been sanctioned by judge american both of the cases that we're going to hear now and i was sanctioned by here let me just get get the whole thing out so you guys are co counsel he's been sanctioned in a lot of different places you been sanctioned here you appear to be genuinely contrite about that  he's not here i guess or he's not at the table even if we accept that the district court's conclusion that this might be enough to sanction you the order doesn't distinguish between t mr reid was counsels well in this case how do we know that it's enough just to deter him well that the award i believe was against the both the plaintiff mrs tillman and enter counsel i know that with respect to the nine hundred twenty seven sanction that was that was solely directed towards me i can speak for myself and i can no i mean i'm just as counsel plaintiff's counsel right right so how do we how do we read that to mean only you that we only need to be worried about  was is going to be deterred by all this by twenty grand i can i mean i did that to be in all candor you know i cannot speak for attorney reed that's here i can tell you from working with both him and the and the party in this case that we are all collectively sufficiently deterred and that in effect deterrence has been it just were a criminal case mr reed would have a significant criminal history right given his price given the prior sanctions how do you get how how is it if we are incorporating into the award that the prior record of mr reed the twenty thousand dollars a sufficient but i think because all of these arguments were were were articulated argued in a sort of with with his with his equal passion and vigor that you heard this morning before judge romero all of mr reed's dirty laundry so to speak was was was placed before was placed before judge america every all the issues that we have here were before him and i do believe that judge america exercised his discretion as i said he had complete command of these facts he was fully engaged in this process lastly as i as i run out of time i do wish to and it's in the briefing as well that both of the hadiths case and the rents decisions are very distinguishable from the facts at hand here to let us look at those i see your time ok thank you very much years of litigation the only reason why he's coming here can appeal wanting to appear contrite today is because he's been sanctioned now by this court the six circuit in one of the cases they fought for filing a frivolous appeal because they've lost both cases they were sanctioned and because m tillman jones went to national and filed seven other cases making claims of fraud in the court the court down there said that that he believes that mr tenet goes right in the papers and sanctioned there as well so after being  mirror to know that he did not know about i believe the six circuit decision post dated the court's order in these two cases it's frankly it's irrelevant for purposes of the turn i'm not sure it is because he how can we you know turned and this court says very clearly that you must a couple of things i want to say is on the malicious prosecution case it's been filed been raised it was enough for mr tenet to file frivolous lawsuits after frivolous lawsuits he working with miss petter absconded with my clients all my client's business records mr tennis became in possession of those documents you're not arguing the michigan i'm not i'm saying that there are different damages that are involved there they went on television they committed it's a completely different matter and you want to i would just say this you were your orders were not in the phone call that i received where mr reed said that he was calling up to have himself and this or ten ish demanding a million dollars in forty eight hours or they were going to file an irrelevant affidavit with all kinds of impertinent and scandalous accusations i could envision him stroking a white kitten may or may not have been wearing a monocle of the time but i felt like i was in a bad movie and fo years we've had a litigation sees people who've been sanctioned across the country in twenty thousand dollars just doesn't get it and they did not articulate why twenty thousand dollars would deter when they've your position thank you is to be submitted you can call an ex