office craziness with where one judge right before i went to trial told them i want to see all evidence against this man that i don't believe he's guilty he's sixteen years old and look at the allegations you're making against them we go to we go to trial now all of a sudden the story is this oh he didn't beat up for a while oh she just laid back and let him have what we could she was scared of him michael warman grabs the grand jury minutes and he cross examine know where she states she beat up great beat up fight never saw a minute all the physical violence all the ted bundy nonsense now the medical examiner comes me let me just ask the question yes want to hear your answer ok and in the time since then particularly since two thousand and fifteen you've tried to get that reconsidered which judge kogan has denied  only question before us today is whether judge kogan says order telling you you couldn't file any more requests without leave of court was in error so we're not yet hearing the challenge you just argued to us we're trying to decide if judge hogan made a mistake in prohibiting you from filing any more so i just want you to take a minute to tell us why you think the court and i never knew about it i found out by accident i produced in the lower court my version of pacer nowhere does it show that i was going through anything i used to call all the time start asking questions how was it for thirty years she was saying that how i had a full of fear opportunity to present my claims in front of judge system and my case was denied by judge system on the merits now you're saying don't know would never happen that's what i'm saying all along i've never had a chance to present my evidence ok right now let's hear from the  good afternoon your honour's my name is amy applebaum i'm an assistant district attorney in brooklyn i represent the respondent i'm going to briefly focus on the issue the judge reggie set forth a few minutes ago which was the issue that this court directed the parties to address in its orders dated february twenty sixth and june twenty eighth of last year petitioner asked the district court to reconsider the one nine hundred ninety six order denying his havey as petition the district court judge kogan denied the motion and explained why the one nine hundred ninety six order should not be disturbed petitioner filed for motions for reconsideration of the initial letter denying reconsideration the district court denied all four motions and orders denying the second and third of those motions warrant petitioner that if he continued to file these motions he might be enjoined from further filings the district court had said filing of repetitive motions for reconsideration may lead to an injunction against further filings and then in petitioners third and fourth motions he acknowledged the warnings but he did not say why he should not be enjoined and it wasn't there was no show cause hearing he was not invited to address that specifically was warned he was warned he was not that's correct and judge kogan did not issue an order to show cause why he should not be enjoined however he did warn him twice and in the petitioners third motion he addressed one of the portions of that motion threat of injunction for following the law and in the fourth motion he said this court is violating my rights to petition the government so it was clear that he was aware that he had been warned but he did not say why he should not be enjoined and then it wasn't until two weeks after the fourth motion two weeks after the court had initially warned petitioner that court issued the injunction so petitioner was on notice and and did have the opportunity during that period to file additional papers with judge kogan explaining why he should not be enjoying this case entirely different from the motes case that was that was mentioned in this court's feb twenty sixth two thousand and sixteen order because in that case it's the district court simply didn't inform the petitioner potential for an injunction and then the district court acted properly in issuing the injunction the injunction did allow petitioner to file additional motions if he attempted to get and received permission of the court and it only apply to this case it wasn't overly broad broad so for those reasons the order of the district court should be affirmed thank you all right i think both parties for your submissions didn't have didn't offer evidence yes he did and i kept present evidence everything he said i was presenting evidence to show that he was fork and i had to what was i going to do  doing that ok i did what i was supposed to do with the law tells you to every time if he says something materially wrong i have to write to tell him no this is not true and present evidence as such this is what i was doing and stand your position and the position of the respondent so we're going to take it under advisement thank you very much