and the fault on the counter claim the lower court on page nine of his decision concluded that it secured jurisdiction against you still are you still claiming to have talked to fifty to one hundred lawyers  pending and your honor as i explained the initial initially the wisconsin attorneys that i tempted to seek i mean they they have nationally took they said yes where we want to email them everything after they reviewed it they rejected it those are the even though the attorneys not admitted here i ask them to do it on prague vici or get admitted there i was desperate to get somebody to cover i think it's reasonable to believe that an attorney would be intimidated  or concerned when a judge holds an attorney contempt for filing a lien removes them from the case and invites the defendant to file a counterclaim the ng there in that decision your hon or was also seen by a colleague judge would she in her decision said she didn't know what made the judge so angry so if judge would seize the anger there then it's reasonable to assume that an average  attorneys will see the anger there and they would fear go and taken on such a case so i don't know what you're on or whether you agree with that or not on page nine of the lower court's decision he concludes that he had jurisdiction on the basis of rule five i submit to you that with respect to a corporation rule five presumes that the corporation is represented by counsel unlike an individual corporation can't be pro se so  if you read rule five rule you'll see that there's a with respect to a corporation there's a presumption that the corporations are represented by counsel but in this case it was not and therefore i i  disagree with the lower court saying that rule five on page nine secures personal jurisdiction in fact they didn't have jurisdiction to serve the counterclaim while the appeal was pending  now the the other thing that concerns me and i invite to the court to thoroughly searched the record there is absolutely no fact presented no evidence no allegations to contradict any of the evidence i submitted with respect to the documented councils that i spoke with in madison with respect to the attorneys i said i spoke with here your arms there is nothing in the record that contradicts the efforts that that came after i presented that the ten documented attorneys that i documented their address and phone numbers and i explained in that in there that i did it a person really because i'm regularly in the court as i said i'm in this building two to three times a week i regularly see attorneys in motion calls from your honor and on the second floor and every attorney there knows me knows that i don't got time i've asked about this case and they all know about it because they all know what happened to me and they all know that i was desperate to get and it's an attorney in here now your honor i'm that concerns me why he was still skeptical but i'd like you know there's nothing in the record that shows any contradiction or any anything that refutes my evidence of so i don't really think that goes the reaches the level of clearly erroneous but about whether you agree with me or  not your this court's prior decision to reinstate me to the case becomes meaningless if the case is gone if the case has been dismissed and what's the purpose of this court reinstating me to the case so well now has to learn to live with after the fact and express my and take some accountability for that for example in this instance trade well was the initiated initiate or of the lawsuit it's the plaintiffs thought about it ahead of time where we're going to file suit whether we're going to file suit what we're going to file suit about it's a sophisticated company that had its hand picked a lawyer out of the hundreds or thousands of lawyers in the country in this instance che could have picked virtually any lawyer and a lawyer in the company had opportunity once the mr selmes temporarily removed from the case and according to the council they did not it's obtain they did not request make a recusal request until after the fact after three sell most successful on his appeal and worst of all at the end of the day while they're behind the eight ball and their lawyers removed they put the lawyer who got them into that mess right back in charge of the effort to head up to locate additional counsel and as mr salem mentioned before  first ten or eleven murders i think he said regarding oh i sent them everything all the e mails right away there were three weeks prior to the hearing in which the court when we speak about invitations the court in this case invited gave trade well a roadmap on how to prove its case how to get the judgment vacated bring in evidence show me or exhibits for exactly four exhibits were presented one by some chicken scratch notes a business card of an individual a lawyer that this is the infamous chance encounter at the gas station down in illinois and some testimony regarding some some notes handwritten in his son's spiral notebook if there are so many e mails why weren't any of those presented if there were so many lawyers and mr salem can presume those attorneys thoughts before regarding what they thought about the court's decision why weren't any of the any affidavit or testimony from those lawyers regarding hey this is what i thought that that never occurred and similarly regarding the jurisdiction the plaintiff again initiated the suit the court doesn't lose jurisdiction plaintiff was properly served with all with the pleadings thereafter on at least six different occasions that in his satisfies rule federal procedure five it also satisfies  service convention which pakistan did not opt out of and then finally regarding this court's alleged mandate in the prior case the court's decision is not meeting place in that case the court's decision reinstated attorney salem there were other issues other than simply reinstating him back to that case or granting letting him or vacating that sanction there was a monetary sanction there were also other referrals to other state ours that is not a meaningless decision particularly for attorney salem to have that result vacated and for all these reasons the court should adopt the district court's decision in toto you know just one point on the record shows that trade will itself other agents on the project and other owners of the company also made attempts to find counsel was it just me they went to the embassy and other things going on less is any other questions i have