case called elwood versus more in the attorney of all four five five six three zero and what i depend on for a reversal that the case was not frivolous is the fact that i thought i had a conspiracy fourteenth amendment then the other cause of action which was civil called section forty nine ne and her initial decision judge barrett said that there was a dearth of cases and i argued that it was one of first impression in addition the facts were not adequately reflexion did in the decision of the taking of the child occurred secretly without court order without a warrant and w mr boyle's case for inclusion in the mediation program and i received permission by court order to argue this or that this article portion of my argument would go to this panel to determine whether or not the case w frivolous and because it was nominated for inclusion my position is that i have a reasonable not just a reasonable attorney but somebody with you thirty of the night circuit willing to nominate the case for settlement there is obviously she thought that i had pled deficient claim against mr boyle which was identical he was a part of this conspiracy that i alleged in the fifth and sixth c fathers such that they could be i could pursue a claim for making false claims of child abuse against my time elmwood those claims of false child abuse form the factual basis and in large supply all of those cases and i found one last night looking forward but in any event there are no cases that i'm aware of that an improper a little get whether attorney or non attorney was able to get attorney's fees what do we do feel how do we deal with all i know was pre k but how do we deal with that it's finding a person well that's a nine hundred eighty case and and i couldn't find any i'm not sure the same rationale applies to proper defendants who are attorneys because there are different incentives that may or may not make any difference and other circuits seem to support your view of this but that's just never frivolous in the first place for the reasons i've argued in my brief in here but i think this is very important because it was the only one i found that came so close to our situation improper attorney let again prevailed and  it was totally related because they knew i was doing all this program to work for mr ellwood and there are all kinds of things happening which i supplemented and put into the aer and they want stricken but it shows the relationship between what they were doing in the enfor folks on the other side will try to persuade you it was a home that mr delaplane had purchased a single man prior to getting married something like maybe a year or a half year before they married and her nanny and never went on the  would have been all the kind of information that he should have been seeking if he was serious about doing this the other issue i want to enforce irv bring up is the fact that i kept saying look the marshal's  he waited for four or five months to try and sell the home it all sounds very very complicated and you have to ask the question where the judge baird abused her discretion in denying the motion t settlement all documents that were provided by the opposing counsel in conjunction with mine now there were there was a written there was an a out what was going on so he gets rid of execution in the zero six zero two four six five five case and i'm going what's going on here but it was for mr drescher the instructions that they put into evidence for remember they're trying to take her husband's house away from him we were just freaking at the same time i'm supposed to be getting ready for custody trial with mr morris and then he waits five months to try and sell the house and judge carney within a month says no you're out the door then when i filed the racial violence complaint against morin in state court on may second two thousand and was definitely there mr moore and in our pleadings in this is never been controversy and i'm going to get even with you for getting involved with the marrying this guy that you married and here was the guy that he's trying to take the helsa away from while we're trying to fight on the custody issue in state court so then here i am trying to juggle all of this together nothing ever comes of this because they were on notice from her debtors exam she had no assets i would say judge george that is malicious abuse of process did they have a right to enforce a judgment yes but did they have a duty to conduct proper discomfort so they could at least determine the more marston because upon analysis there is not sufficient more marson for a for real bill to go through that could satisfy mr moron's fourteen thousand five hundred dollars in a court my name is robert drescher i'm here in both two capacities one as an attorney representing a client one is appropriate offended before i get into the bulk of my argument let me address something that this panel just brought up and that is the case of k and it's a very thousand and four order from the district court the district court went to great lengths specifically to distinguish today and if i can basically do it in a nutshell what can the rest was a case that had merit this case had no merit and  that the same policy considerations do not exist when the pro for attorney litigant is a prevailing defendant rather than a prevailing plaintiffs ensuring that the defendant attorney obtain counsel does not help to filter meritless claims nor is sure of the prosecution of meritorious ones and if the court would remember that one of the holdings of k was that the statutory policy was to kind of force everybody to hire an attorney and what the district court did on may twenty fifth two thousand and four in awarding the attorney fees to the program her defendant myself it it kind of said that that may be but in a case where there has no merit it has no purpose and in fact it's the court goes on to say in contrast awarding attorney fees to prevailing defendants protects them from burdensome litigation with no legal or factual basis exactly is this court held and it's an initial of for affirmation of the appeal of the judgment and we are now faced with that issue again in this court found in two thousand and four initially that the claims of the plaintiffs had no merit had no factual findings and in fact the court made it clear in its award of its attorney fees on the march twenty fifth two thousand and four order that key did not apply because again we're dealing with a merit let's claim not a claim that had merit and the whole purpose behind k analysis was to if you warn of attorney fees furthers the underlining policy of discouraging frivolous or harassing litigation exactly what we have here in front of this court that the appellants of actually suffered the kunar r e law since they have been required to take time away from their practices to prepare and defend the lawsuit again identical to this case that legal service of actually been performed it probably did not seek out a chance for pro se litigation to compensate for an inactive practice every one of them has ended the exact same way in favor of mr moran and again we are here again your honour's for another frivolous matter my client has had to endure five years of this and we ask her attorney fees on this appeal as well as upholding the tourney fees awarded in the district court this is not a case of first impression this is not a case of domestic violence this is a case of a vindictive  litigant who is bent on harassing mr moran and continues to do sue year after year in the end result your honor there is no abuse of discretion in this case in order for this court to find abuse of discretion they would have to find that the district court either misapplied facts or made a gross error of law there is not this was pure discretionary the trial court sitting in judgment over the thousands of pages of documents presented in front of it found that the claims brought forth by the plaintiff and all the cases had no legal foundation and no merit and no facts to support it were victorious shifts and harassing and brought forth for the sole purpose of harassing annoying and faxing mr moran and for that reason the district court ordered attorney fees to be paid this court rarely issues attorney fiords and civil rights cases because of the fact that there is a overriding policy not to do so because it could  right to address the government to address wrongdoing however a review of this record will show that time after time what has been occurring is that the plaintiffs have been attempting to read litigate child custody matters and federal court they have brought judges commissioners and members of the county forward in a federal lawsuit because they have the audacity to rule against them if this court reviews the record they will see that every single jurist every single member of the county and even myself have to accept fully represented or ruled against the plaintiffs in every matter brought forth in every forum what has occurred is the plaintiffs are attempting to use this court as a sword not a in my opinion there is not a con in my opinion there's not a competent jurisdiction i would find her to be insolvent she doesn't even file bankruptcy which would have been if she truly is insolvent you should have used the power of the court to declare bankruptcy which she has not done so that matters were completely frivolous they were brought for an ill purpose no factual basis for the district court found them to be frivolous fixation and brought forth to annoy mr moran they properly awarded attorney fees there is no a cuba and the california department of justice in the underlying case the plaintiffs in that case brought the case against the jurors because they just simply didn't like the the court the trial court i'm afraid i don't have all of the legal authority to support my position it is that there was by nine hundred eighty three well that isn't really answer the question that is correct that if there is no jurisdiction then you would be considered a prevailing party so now the plaintiff in the underlying case never objected to the attorney thesis based on the record feldman being a jurisdictional issue and so i'm afraid that i am not prepared to address that and i do apologize to the court for that without knowing that this cannot happen just in order to either try to stay the state court cases or in other way try to vax to judge the state court jurist in that matter just saying it's a one nine hundred eighty three and it's why the law should be changed to come over this procedural hurdles but that was never the case here and then in bringing this appeal they argue that they are entitled to attorney's fees and the because the district court abused her discretion in allowing me to  no no you're right we can't bring that but we don't we could substitute the head of the department of justice to seek the relief we want but we don't know how to do that and that was just a constant constant things that we had to deal with in this case and it was it's been four years since we've been here on the same things and it's just we understand that in order to award one nine hundred eighty eight fees it is more in the cannie of los angeles and two social workers in their public pasadena and wellman and barber dallas and in elwood versus drescher we represent a young dismiss in both cases were affirmed on appeal i would submit that the district court did not abuse its discretion and in awarding attorneys in particular my clients are basically peripheral the sets of issues briefed in these hundreds of paragraphs of complaints and hundreds and hundreds of pages in the record before the court refresh my recollection on what basis with these no merits one way or the other that's correct basically there were numerous opportunities to amanda and there's a link the reporter's transcript of the oral argument before the district court where the district court asked counsel for the plaintiffs to go paragraph by paragraph tell me which paragraphs allege anything about the county social workers she listed four or five and they went paragraph by paragraph and none of them sufficed with respect to judy hatch instead in the second case elwood v drescher which arose in the middle of l with b moran suddenly we were served with this new complaint which surprisingly named as a defendant one of the violation based on a theory of conspiracy under woodrum and in particular at that hearing and in the hearings with respect to attorneys these we did point out that miss berry is intimately familiar with the facts of whether i'm in claims against my clients were groundless and finally my client was not part of any efforts to enforce judgments thank excuse me the motion in which the defendant or i should say plaintiff elwood in fact asked for attorney fees against us in this particular case that was  d the basis of her denial or i'm sure i'm sorry the basis of her motion her appeal here is abuse of discretion however if you take a look at what happened in the underlying killings you see there was no abuse of discretion there in reacting to that and what she did was in fact she made even resisted i'm sorry she resists she resisted but unfortunately her resistance caused us to have to respond her first resistance was a claim of exemption the problem is  agreed with and that in fact the claim was premature and in fact that she just couldn't let go of it and that was really the problem in other words the the cause of these motions was a result of her