of the issues of this case and perhaps the reason why one thirty seven sacha's have been imposed against him on this matter for example on page six of opposing causes grief the lower half of the page is comprise disturbing when the author's words are perforated by another and then improperly placed between quotation marks and presented as the actual quote is a staple of english one of the one that i've called used to be exactly that unjustifiable quantum leap to charge this meant was there by recording any legitimacy to someone else's self delusion if it exists yet the misquotes have done especially precisely that have never heard or read nor did i ever think i would really hear coming down from the bench in any american court of law words of that nature respectfully for a multitude of reasons and in respect three days of hearings on the one thirty seven motion effectively superceded it dance with the client's respective interests for months and tell the clients matters hostage while the hearings ensued but for  unfortunately had to be filed and as as an attorney as an officer of the court was with great reluctance that myself my firm filed a petition for sanctions the allegations that were made in the motion to vacat there was never it was never there was never disputed by myself that there was no agreement with counsel to set those for hearing the allegation in count two of the motion  entered an ex parte order that i did this because i perceive myself to be a well county insider and the implication was that i was taking advantage of that insider status and taking advantage of the system asked and i probably did discuss with miss smith is there are pending objections to start with miss smith took that statement out of context if you read the entire transcript as it's very clear that i have not discussed them the book tony doesn't use the court smart program there are in many of the transcripts there are typos i may have stumbled over my words when i was in court that morning i even in the transcript when you read the entire transcript it's evident that i  we're setting a hearing date on the underlying position for child support and visitation but we still have these pending objections to discovery motion to continue and i was properly before the court on with proper notice both sides had outstanding objections to discovery that had not been addressed so mystic argues that she never alleges that i entered into expertise communication but her  rules there had not been a motion to compel filed there had been two one k correspondence between the attorneys unfortunately and as what brings me to the reasoning part of the reasoning behind the need to file a petition for sanctions was that the correspondence regarding the two one k and the discovery issues were malicious they were were they contain allegations against myself they went unfortunately down the wrong path they lead to mismatch i leave here you see complaints against myself alleging racial discrimination that i was an anti christian b tell the court and continue to harass myself over what she believed was religious discrimination i think that called in to the self tells the court that this was proffered improper reschedule i never received a phone call i never received a letter we could've addressed that issue much more expeditiously than waiting to sew two days before the big hearing on the objections to file the motion y interpretation of the law as sophomore as your honors i'm sure i have read the briefs and the letters attached even in the reply brief smith continues to conference just for turning referenced missives christian beliefs but he didn't do that on his own initiative this meant filed across the ocean for sanctions against myself and my client that was preceded during before just for a tiny epa same time directly after the motion of a day in her cross motion for sanctions and her reply i believe expertise order would have been an order entered by counsel's own definition now i was before the war without notice to counsel that judge for tani and should be order knowing that there was no notice to counsel without her up here and that she had don't know objection to the continuance she could have appear and she could have addressed the other issues in my motion to continue was for the objection to discovery i was properly before the court addressing the work on continuing the hearing of the child support and the underlying objection to discovery which was another basis for the motion continue that is to go to the level of filing your deceit complaint against another tourney for most attorneys should be a big decision what the purpose behind it was the allegations of the outside christian hearing there was an easier way to address that a letter a letter would have sufficed and we could have proceeded without the name calling without the the allegations against myself and the allegations that continued in hearing for three days against myself the turning the allegations against judge for tiny i guess charged anderson in the in the motion substitution because they're both judges are prejudiced against her because they ruled against  attorney smith when she saw the order containing that provision regarding scheduling hearing on competing objections to discovery i think that's what happen