very much for here allowing me to make arguments before this distinguished panel today i just want to start by saying that i want to just give you a little background very quickly to let you know why i am here and how i got here in two thousand and twelve  represented the lender and myself in the loan closing and long story short they gave and a certain single attorney represented both you correct correct which is a practice from what i've learned in that the promise of legal representation never manifested itself to me because what they had in the execute ways what turned out to be a usurer snow and no that's not a bonafide no and note that i found out has multiple probably eighteen tila violations violations of multiple general statutes and when i brought that when i discovered this i brought it to the lenders attention and the lender basically said you know the notes do sell your house proceeds was commercial and not residential when i have a preponderance of evidence that i'm a legend shows that i told them that i was going to i lived there i moved in and i live there today and he still missed allegedly misrepresented to the banking commission the bank commission then sent it over to hud for determination where if in fact the pelleas allegations were believed i could have been disciplined by the bank commission and hood so i went into that's background i think that i think there is my opinion there is a public issue it's a concern for me but there's also a public issue concern i think because if this lender is allowed to do that and not be held to task for that i think other lenders are watching and other people could try the same thing if this is not put in check so i didn't have the resources i went into state court pro se and when i went to state court pro prejudice and there was one request to revise ask me to delete the complaint on the rules of practice in connecticut if your complaint is stricken you can repeat within fifteen days to try to fix your misstep and i did that and i continuances explaining it and i had been granted this on the same circumstance have been granted to continue twice a new judge came in and then given it continues and dismissed the case for failure to close t i never complained about that at all and i brought and there was no ruling on the on the rd substitute complaint the judgement is on susan not a judgment on the merits i don't complain about the emotion of the strike because in connecticut i just briefly in connecticut or under or near the connecticut supreme court's decision and royce vs where sport is well settled that if a new pleading is filed after a motion to strike has been granted the form of pleadings is deemed there is no basis for an appeal so when i replay my rd complaint is if the motion strikes never happen they were withdrawn all my appeal rights went so when the district court when i brought came into district court the district and those motions of strikes i could not possibly be trying to avoid an appeal on the motion to strike and the panel here in a nd circuit has agreed with me there in addition to that the panel is held that  doctrine is that only the u s supreme court in federal courts may review and reject state court decisions the rationale is on the cut if the plaintiff has neither a practical reason or a legal basis to appeal to state court decisions so i'm not trying to get the federal court to review every jet that the claims in the motions of strikes because they're not there they're gone and i'm not complaining of the injury respects to a judgment of the ensuite it is said that in the whole block versus albany county board of elections furthermore by focusing on the requirement that the state court judgment on the merits be the source of the injury we can see how a suit asking the federal court to deny a legal conclusion reached by state court can nonetheless be interdependent rooke of philip so that judgment on the suit we know now that the motion strikes i'm not asking them to review and reject we know that there is no ruling on the rd substitute complaint at all and we know that it could not be asking them to review rejected nine suit because in fact it's not a judgment on the merits so i don't film and because i am not trying to i'm not complain of any injuries by any ruling on the rd subsequent play and i'm not asking the federal court to review or reject any important for me to just read this into the record the fact that the state court chose not to remedy injuries caused by in this case the pelleas defendant does not transform the subsequent federal suit on the same matter into an appeal for bitten by roopa feldman so they did not remedy it the fact that they didn't remedy it does not transform my subsequent felt federal suit into an appeal i have to complain of injuries and again this panel gave an example of what complained of injuries up in green vs mada court held that the situation would have been different if the family court it enter a final order of distribution permanently removing the child from her custody and the plaintiff had brought this action seeking to return to child in such a case plaintive could have invite the district court to review and reject the family court's order in disposition assuming that the other requirements of rico feldman has been met and in that case however the plaintiffs brings in one thousand nine hundred and three action only after the family court proceedings were dismissed without a final order of disposition and that's what happened in my case in the state court it was dismissed because of the non suit for fear the close the pleadings i couldn't and the what i did was i use what's called a saving statute in connecticut and a standing statute allows you with this same cause of actions but what i did was i pled different claims in allegations and why because you went more and more reading and in learning and understanding i thought that i really really for instance an example in state court what i didn't know initially in the stricken complaints was that if there is a loan that the actually the consumer reverse board reserve board who writes the separate extension of credit like a home equity loan to fix the house if that is the loan which it is in this case the actual dispersement at the closing to purchase the home is no occurrence of rescission and that was september and i found my complaint three years later in less than three years later be in june of fifteen in my stricken complains i didn't totally airily allege learned and read more and some of the allegations in federal court are completely different then the allegations in the state court and what this nd circuit has said about different allegations is not the nd one the federal plaintiff must seek federal court review and rejection of the state court judgment the court does not have that the court does however give some guidance as to what causes are not been attempts to litigate in federal court a matter previously litigated in state court if a federal plaintiff presents an independent claim albeit one that the nines the legal conclusion that the state court has reached in a case in which he was a party then there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the fandom prevails one of the principles of occlusion and it's important to know that you want to join on to heal didn't find rest if you have sufficiently different claims their federal court is not bar because you're not asking them to review or reject the motions of the allegations in a motion to strike which have been we read and don't longer exist and there are different so he does he i believe that the federal court can't hear this case for a number of reasons i've just scratched the surface and now it's at the end of the morning into the afternoon so i don't want to continue but reading all the law that i have but in reading i'm it's not the th or the th circuit which would be appropriate i'm just learning what this honorable nd circuit has said about a situation that eerily similar to mine many situations at the federal court is not barred from hearing a claim and i think that it's it's not only with me i think that i'm passionate about it it's my house obviously but if this lender is not held accountable for what he has done or at least show the district court that he didn't do it it's going to send the wrong message that linder and it's going to send a very wrong message to anyone else that's thinking or considering doing this to someone else i went to college graduated from college i mean educated god they got it by me they got it by me but i'm a fighter and think i could i would stand and spend hours and months at a computer all night twenty four hours trying to read this so i can stand here and argue is what i'm doing and i'm hoping that you will do as the respectfully request just from what i've read that's all i can go by what the nd circuit has done panels have done in the past in a situation like this as sent it back to the district court to see if i'm telling the truth if my