good morning my name is david this matter has been thoroughly briefed and i will just go through a few points that were that mean clarification first the ruling of the district court was an error it was a dismissal based upon the failure plead causation we believe due to a misunderstanding of what was played in the complaint albeit the complaint was over a hundred pages and was replete with redundancies and could have been prepared differently we believe nevertheless causation was played in the complaint the district court understood the cause ation for the injury to be the filing of the state action by two of the defendants in this action rather the complaint sets forth that the causation was the appellant's involvement in the rico scheme is alleged in the complaint that is to say he was the last step or stage of that scheme and he was an unwilling participant in that scheme and his business contracts business attention were harmed as a result of his being affected and involved in the illegal rico corporation those motions were not before the court in the court did not have jurisdiction to hear those as we have illustrated and argued in our brief the problem here is this was an action that was originally commenced in the state court by a pro se attorney plaintiff retired attorney plaintiff one of the defendants remove that action to the district court it was not initiated in the district court by the plainti plaintiff was a pro se litigant and under the rules especially the local rules if he wanted to file and receive papers via electronic service he had to file a motion requesting that and it had to be granted by the district court which the record is clear never happened therefore he was not properly served with any of those motions and the court should not have ruled upon them finally as to the remaining oppositions filed by the remaining at the leads in this case most of their briefs address whether the complaint addressed the rico scheme that was not an issue raised on this  the not filed their own counter designation i'm saying the counter statement of issues nor did they file cross appeals we are prepared to address any questions the court might have on those issues as to whether or not the rico scheme was properly pled however we believe we have covered that adequately and thoroughly in our reply brief if the court has no further questions i will reserve my remaining time to rebut anything that might be raised by the a pelleas should i believe it is necessary to do court's order granting defendants will twelve the six motions was correct and deserves to be affirmed if the court has a question of political to a particular at police telcel for that at please present and prepared to answer that question before i start on the not appeal it further kyle back to not raise any issue about the anti slapp order in his opening brief which forfeits any challenge there to the law is settled that reasons of fairness militate against consideration of a point raised first for the first time by callback on reply second as observed in the non defendants and hand these brief call back forfeited any it pellet challenge to the just record order granting their motions because he did not oppose their callback the district court had the soonest ponty power to dismiss all defendants since the ground in the other motions to dismiss apply equally to all defendants so called that service issue is without merit the following points concern all did not and cannot plead the required causation and damages elements of the attempted rico causes of action only allege result of the alleged money laundering and use and loan of money at a user interest rate or speculative future injury additionally callbacks to rico's claims failed to plead required elements such as a pattern of racketeering activity instead he only pleads one isolated money laundering unlawful  incident there is no enterprise among at pelleas who do not share a common purpose there is no business of laundering money among have police kyle batts alleged harm resulted from the underlying case against him which would have a ri regardless of where or at what interest rate the money came from just as the district court properly concluded callback was far too removed from the alleged racketeering acts to ever be able to plead a rico claim the only conceivable  grieved parties from the allege wrongful acts was nam who had to pay the alleged serious interest rate and the government for jianqing alleged tax evasion scheme neither in the district court nor on appeal state what facts he would allege in an amended pleading and how those facts would change the legal effect of his pleading at best he simply tries to rearticulate what he has already alleged so callback has forfeited any challenge to the district cour