show and you look at their d c office you can see who the partners are because they list them separately they list a number of categories and then just send inquiry based on facts that are in the public record would suggest some of my complaint is true and i believe it is then there are some very serious issues here and that is it's certainly enough to certainly a plausible claim under under rico you just record and confuses the language a little bit at one point to just record says there's nothing plausible here using the trombley it's all standard then at the end of the opinion the district court decides to dismiss  subject matter jurisdiction grounds really for two reasons one finding that there's just so little here it doesn't even reach bell versus hood standards and to the lack of diversity and so in terms of the plausibility i mean it is asking somebody to swallow a lot that there is this giant conspiracy involving the state judiciary that goes all the way up to having the illinois court of appeals affirmed judge fide factual in cream allegations that gets to what i was talking about a moment ago unless they dream have kind of said something it's a fact i mean you know you could say that we're all sitting in new york city right now except that we're not there and i would deny it and th te your honor and there based on my real experience here now also ask yourself you know what what is more of the more reasonable inference that to me reporting would hire what hire a lawyer and fight tooth and nail from producing a stenographic notes of a hearing tragic that a falsified or just give me this and a graphic notes something with a city chicago where they fight me tooth and nail for six months for it and this and never produced documents after they told me they were going to give them to me what was the more reasonable inference that they were lying in their concealing evidence or that they just they want to discussing before the public record point that's that's not that's simply that's not possible because it's only in an equity partner under illinois law and the only law to term is who is a citizen for the purposes of a am not able to know who isn't an equity partner who shares his firm's probs and losses based on a website i need to engage in scripture to get that also point out the new in the why is not even appeared in these proceedings so we have no way of knowing what their members are ok fine but how should we decide that why why doesn't he at least get his jurisdictional discovery and diversity typically that's what we require and it's just an extra step you know where the partners it seems very easy for the defendants to produce that information which is within their control but with respect to the diversity or shoot he found the pleading that it literally had the citizenship of no i understand it was a defective pleading but judge shade decided to dismiss the whole thing in six days so there wasn't much time to understand that there is no time for discovery but when you file a case in federal court you're supposed to plead the shooters and ship of course you are and you have any idea how many a motion for leave to amend in this court which was denied on july eighth that proposed amendment that he had should just it would not have cure the issue in any event ok and then again circuit court rule twenty eight  certainly they have a d c partner but the only amendment has not dropped neal in the royal she nor stated who the members of the l l c are so he has yet after repeated opportunities to do that and i think a case of america is a perfect example of where the court chose the time for opportunity has expired and so so suppose we look at his rico claims because we don't have to worry about citizenship if the result claims are enough to support federal question jurisdiction because the rest of this let's just assume for the moment comes in under thirteen sixty seven you didn't file across appeal here and  was quite clearly if you look at the district court's decision a decision to dismiss without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction so we recently held in the or me just against me marcus case and other cases that to change a disposition without prejudice to one with prejudice gives you more relief than the district court gave you because of course with prejudice shuts it off forever whereas without prejudice in principle so but if we were to to think that maybe there is a twelve b six problem here would we need to read and book your honor i don't think it meets the first level of review which is the level of know we're talking about if you read the allegation of this complaint there are twenty separate individuals named as conspirators in this conspiracy all of whom are connected by one single thing his lawsuit they include everything from a sitting circuit court judge the sitting circuit court judges clerk three members of the chicago lot apartment including the chief corporation council chief patton three members of the illinois supreme supreme court character and fitness is it that out of the pot the range of possibility but it isn't there there are some reasons you can look at that because if you look at some of the people that are included here the number of random things that have to have curbed at watch i think makes this factually prosperous which is he chose his attorney when he chose to file a lawsuit against a far shop yet somehow one of the twenty five thousand cook county attorneys he chose one who happened to be part of this enterprise that was going to conspire against him to sham atocha sloshes when the case was randomly assigned in cook county somehow it found its way to a judge who apparently even though she has denied this on the record anita ponder one of the defendants and then stared everything one direction the court reporters he accused the court reporters in that case of falsifying the transcript and of actually deleting things from the memory of the computer and on the tape these are not court orders hired by the court or by opposing counsel these are two court orders hired by him so these are all actors that have nothing to do with each other and he chose them and somehow everyone he chooses ends up to be part of the center prize i don't think that meets that level of non frivolous non fictional and that league it's legally frivolous as well your honor because if you look at this from a legal standpoint what's being alleged here is a conspiracy that's all about one thing it's his dispute and his lawsuit which i for shaw and if you look at the gambro over or the last case which went up on a shocking twelve ninety two issue that was a conspiracy among detectives state prosecutors it cetera and then had full allegations of perjured testimony coercion falsified testimony and those guys were acquitted and one of them brought a lawsuit and claimed that it was a rico violation and it came up to the court on a short if i question as to whether a conspiracy all with one actor and one case involved that went on for several years involved a number of predicate actions could that form the basis for a rico claim and this court should know and it should show for a good reason because of this court sure spiritus tells us that to have the pattern element you can't have a single a single victim you can't just say it's a system wide corruption the way he has in the way he has alleged here and the court pointed out even the appellate court didn't escape this rancor because they somehow manipulated the timing of their decision so that it would coincide with the briefing in this case i think this does not meet the basic level of not plausibility but beyond that this is preposterous and this is delusional i don't know that basis i don't think it needs to be remanded but if you did there are certainly cases here were patient been dismissed on slack of subject matter jurisdiction but they come to this court and the court determines well actually the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was not appropriate yes unfortunately this court has not been one hundred percent consistent in whether that is an appropriate thing to do or not that i'm aware of those cases right and i think in this case should be the right to shoot all right thank you  don't believe you should but even if you believe that were appropriate this court has previously held that it would not do so where remain and it would be futile because the plaintiffs cannot state clients mr inte concluded in his reply brief that our arguments on these points did not merit discussion but i did want to take the opportunity to briefly highlight those those arguments and more importantly to address any questions this court might have with respect to the state law independent claim in the legal malpractise claims mr internationally has played him out of salt and put himself out of court and this claim because he cannot establish proximate cause wear and the face of the complaint his claim to remain viable after the point at which he discharged its nature with respect to his common law fraud claims again he's played himself out of court the representations that he claims are fraudulent simply are not actionable representations there are representations of opinion or premises to represent him aggressively there's a clear law that those are not actionable as fraud and respect to the civil law civil common law conspiracy claims against all of the defendants under state law again he's asserted certain purposes of this conspiracy and on the face of his complaint all of those purposes have failed he was not prevented from prosecuting his claims he was not coerced into withdrawing his suit or settling his claims he was not coarsen and withdrawing what i want you to address for a second is we're all ninety so you seem to be under a strange view of rule nine b it requires significantly more detail in pleadings than rule eight does and a rico claim is the kind of thing that does trigger the rule nine b specificities standards so i think some of the cases you're relying on about the need to assume facts  to detail this a little different from saying you know let's put your cards on the table let's get the relevant evidence not just wild accusations that will have an i don't know your honor it's a joke or point out what is what is unclear about my besides i mean my numerous affidavits alleging that there were other witnesses that some of these hearings where he she was just screaming me like a like a lunatic i mean i've never experienced this type of treatment in a court of law and any of the many jurisdictions where i practiced throughout the course of my career i mean standard my core reporter and judge brewer just let loose on me for the first minute and i was beside myself i mean you can ask the right girl friends here right now she came that day to see the hearings of the of the next day