of appeal in this case was proper the case the action was the same as the action that was in the underlying case of course it didn't have the attorneys names in it because the attorneys weren't actually parties to the case number one number two and more importantly the notice of will have been happening is that mr schorr did holding these privileges pocket not allowing us to discover any of the facts relating to the interactions with between mr short and his lawyers which one of them was which one of them court clarified rule one thirty seven didn't change anything clarified it by adding the thirty day you language in the post trial motion langridge two obvious instances litigant can file one thirty seven motion after one thirty seven motion after one thirty seven motion and keep going and going and going that's what he said in his ruling during the oral argument on the motions first of all that's not what's happened of was in a case like this where we have two years worth of litigation after the injury over the final judgment in two thousand and thirteen where parties are filing  parties are filing motions where parties are taking positions that there was no nothing was covered under rule one th even though they signed a complaint they had gotten information from someone and that someone had to have been the plaintiff in this case and that's what we did that was stephanie's the call that we made because we could have separate developed and the allegations of their amended complaint should do what a client normally does he gave the attorneys all the facts as he knew them and apparently they are a forty page memorandum full of facts there's nothing in the record saying that that memorandum so for this the purposes of this hearing you know it would not have been a full fledged waiver for sure in the mail practice case it is because everything would have been an issue there but here he did not put any specific attorney jurisdiction under the previous previous cases like the with smoking mandela evil and now recognize that you're not going to just continue to have jurisdiction over rule one thirty seven simply because someone is filing papers in the trial for i also like to i think this is a great example of that if you look at this case on the defendant's argument the the evidence or hearing here was concluded about three years after the final judgment after that it was the entry he why would need be sufficient to directed to the person or the party not in a timely fashion and not easy word filled with the supreme court rule about if the court is clear the courts have been clear that unless they are prejudiced then the book but we do know this is not an issue this is not what i'm talking about here i'm talking about actually in the least in the caption all the notice of appeal you i've heard a lot of statements today about things that weren't there for example just just burke asked about whether the rules one through seven motions to get shoes that were going on in his pleadings no there's never in the motions for sanctions any specific against me i was granted leave to appear as a party in that case when the sanctions motions were first brought up and i have been to a party to the proceedings technically ever since i brought a motion to dismiss before the judge below in the first motions for sanctions are brought against  didn't exist or never been since then any kind of bystanders were put together for that hearing in the october third two thousand fortune here in the march thirteenth two thousand and fifteen june twenty sixth when my motion to dismiss was supposed to be july twenty four april twenty ninth twenty sixteen and most importantly your honor in my previous my first amended complaint was the first and only document that the defendants in that case the underlying case responded to that was not heard by the same j prejudice i filed amendments addressing the concerns that were brought up in that motion and that hearing and i've been through there after that community was abandoned by my successor so the documents that i had filed before the court never got heard never got considered never was dismissed on any grounds by the judge there is nothing in the record whatsoever to say that anything that i ever did before that word was sanctioned will in any way but we are supposed to take  which was solved wrongly with respect to mr schorr the judge how in evidence you're hearing and found that there was no sanctionable conduct the rule in this case is that it just doesn't have to make any findings whatsoever in denying him or sanctions that gives you that kind of an extension if there's another one thirty seven motion and so i would say and i'm just and i apologise i'm running over i just want to make this one point if i may one of two things is true either i'd walk alongside with my him and my interventions apart because the right to stand on my own two feet and make my own positions known i was entitle to the notice that rule one thirty seven hours which is to say i should have been told that there was a motion pending against me thirty days after the last  bill i believe he intervened but it actually did if my memory serves correctly the danger that judge coronas heard then the functions to dismiss mr down wasn't there to present his motions the motions were granted on timeliness grounds and he denied mr downer's motions as moot that's my recollection of what happened  clear is mr jenkins would like to say one thing is clear there was an appeal there was an appeal filed which would have done what it would you know you vested the trial court of jurisdiction in the case i don't know what the expert mr home was doing the  asking for his fees prospective fees on appeal but i do know that if the case was about appeal i don't know what the argument could have been that the trial court to jurisdiction to do to do anything because it would be injure divested jurisdiction in defending against the motion is not different if your defense to the motion is i didn't do those things my lawyers did my lawyers did my lawyers are the ones that that filed  pleading my lawyers are the ones that came up with these arguments my lawyers my lawyers my lawyers how am i ever going to prove that how can that not be a waiver of the attorney client privilege and with respect by the way to do this