the next case on for argument is excuse me beater versus rupert murdoch at all dorothea i'm here to answer any questions you might have about my my brief requesting my the opportunity to amend my complaint you have no argument to make in support of a show cause order why you should not ask why you should not be sanctioned for your performance in this court is that correct correct your honor and you have answered a response but there's been no ruling yes that is correct john with all that in the background don't you think it was at best cavalier to file it reply brief that did nothing but quote from the book instead of answering the brief you know you want to make my understanding is that it was not necessary required me to types of clients that i'm dealing with and dealing with the types of cases that i'm dealing with you expect you as an officer of this court to exercise not only the duty you owe to your client which are duty the duty that you load of this to this court and we have rules and standards by which we expect you to perform and we also expect all attorneys who are asked by their clients to do things which may be totally inappropriate or in contravent that's picked particularly applies to my reply my reply to you put in front of us something that has no bearing on our determination of the legal issues that are before us last minute decision you're on and i'm your honor the reason i prepared that is i do believe that quote from the book was relevant and i believe that  believe the kinds of cases that i'm bringing your honor under these conditions i'm bringing are important to this court in a point in this country we've got a case here i'm dealing with a situation where with two billionaires murdoch rupert murdoch and michael bloomberg billions in very politically powerful people ask trading my about the content of your brief yes it was entirely quote from another book that had nothing to do with this case as well know that you know actually that that's the that's the when you talk about my reply brief yes that that was a quote but grant but but i think it was pretty relevant to what the entire thrust of my argument here is we've got a situation where the law ok you're on let's question why we here we're here your honor in the end ultimately  ultimately on i might my concern here and i think i think i'd try to get that all across in my reply is to explain that we have a situation in this country and in these courts we are dealing with a situation where the law has explained my papers explain this i was hit with a motion eight a motion for sanctions that was baseless and quite frankly i devoted i don't know how much time a couple of weeks to dealing with this with all these  papers when i'm a fellow who has a lot of very very poor and very needy clients who quite frankly need justice and quite frankly the reason i bring these these papers to this court because i feel that you are not fulfilling your obligation to my clients to please the court linda goldstein for all of the apple judge daniels properly exercised his discretion when he denied pay tribute motion to amend her complaint even though ms bidder made her motion after we had filed our motion to dismiss and after we had identified all of the many legal shortcomings in her complaint she did not present to the district court with a proposed amended complaint that purported to q or any of those legal defects nor did her papers otherwise suggest how she might cure any of those legal defects when the district court gave ms peters counsel yet another opportunity to explain how she could state a cause of action at oral argument he did not on that record daniels did not abuse his discretion when he held that any further amendment of the pleadings because she had already amended her complaint once would be an exercise in futility the district court's decision provides free independent grounds for dismissing the two rico claims in the amended complaint the complaint was filed two year after two years after the four year has no standing to bring a rico claim because she did not allege injury to her business or property and she did not properly identify a rico enterprise likewise the district court decision provides t independent grounds for dismissing the common law claims for fraud and breach of contract they are time barred and neither of them states a claim each of those rulings provides a separate ground for firming drudge daniels ruling that would be futile to permit another amendment of the complaint and as has just been pointed out none of those rulings has been challenged in this court in fact coun generous possible reading petra beat her and her sister josee sought out of the new york post as well as other reporters and other news organizations because they wanted protection from the u s attorney's  if her name were in it mark owen also told pay tribute or that he would that if he were to go ahead and write the article that he would contact mayor bloomberg office and he would contact the u s attorney's office so that they would have an opportunity to respond to her allegations and the amended complaint concedes that margolin told her that he was doing that on these facts there is no justice in applying the law as it exists in the state of new york to petra beater's allegations plainly the article that was published which truthfully reported on the criminal referral that had been made to the u s attorney's office was not the article that petra beater wanted margolin to write but even though the article included petra peter's name which mark owen allegedly agreed not to print there is no allegation that mayor bloomberg or the u s attorney's office ever reached out to petra beat or after the article was published and threatened her in any way or harmed her in any way in other words the injuries that she feared by having her name published didn't happen in this lawsuit all she's seeking is damages for injury to reputation but those injuries are precluded by the one year statute of limitations in new york for defamation claims which applies to all claims that seek damages for injury to reputation unless the court has any questions we ask the court to affirm the district  your honor my request is simply to be able to be permitted to with the benefit of the arguments that have been before this court and the lower court to be able to  all could would agree that that there was something very odd that went on here and and the possibility that that what occurred could not fit into a legally cognizable complaint boggles the mind i think at one point your honor we've got a situation understand we have an adversarial system system here but we've got a situation where it has become more like the coliseum when you've got two gladiators going one after another and and the bigger the