case except the gottlieb's asked me if i mean come on argue so i'm hoping that my role here will be a person who tries to be some clarity to what has been brief pro se they're not models or perfection the receipt i have but there are some issues in there and i'm hoping to really see is just flat out wrong and how they were cite the record and how it's presented misleading picture and i remember when i was a lot of work in this courthouse once i got a case where the post office was on trial and the judge and i said oh they're going to lose their she did but there is merit to the to the gottlieb's case buried within all the distractions that you get so if i could i'd like to actually turn to the the c's brief and do what they got these probably should have done in their reply they're about six pages that's going to point out some things are just wrong or wrong or just misleading or collapsing facts in a misleading way i'm looking at page ten where the the f c c talks about judge state courts that was her choice a form that's lost in this whole process it's an arcane little piece of you know procedural niceties but the mrs gottlieb actually started her case properly before the f c c did she was ordered then five days beforehand had medical emergencies came i handled this for her i have the documents here the doctor's notes the surgeries the all the stuff that you try to do five days for the for the deposition supposed to take place in miami she's in brazil because her husband s to move down there is the only gets work at seventy five years old and you know unable to practice law he was a lawyer once upon a time she asked for permission to try to change my brazil or income chaka it really doesn't much matter when you tell a judge this is appropriate and the judge is inclined to do it a judge is very likely to do it right the the the reason why i'm bringing i'll get right that the reason why i bring up this background is to sort of give a feel for why the colonies felt like they had no choice at that point with a judge who was going to you know four pm the night before a deposition in miami tell her that her application that she filed five days earlier was denied and she has to fly somehow impossible to fly there they made a decision that they were not going to win and here they hope that somehow they be able to preserve their rights really of that and you know the argument you're making means that dismiss is not an appropriate remedy because she's being required on no notice to fly over night from disease from brazil right the the the the decision they made a decision well you can cer reggie the what i'm hoping to do is to move the focus back from the dismissal to the original decision to move this case in florida there is going to be by the way a jury trial and the underlying ongoing southern district of new york turn over proceedings there is likely going to be a motion to change venue of that to florida because there are obviously witnesses to prove these there are three issues by the way where they protect by the homestead law were they join but he's not in florida so what difference does it make what differences which is whether you're in new york or florida and well as far as trying the case which may not be for you but your decision might i'm hoping that whatever decision you write that it then have to do with the proceeds the proceeds under florida's law in florence homestead law that the proceeds of a homestead sale are themselves protected us homes and proceeds so they're going to argue that they're going to argue that one and so the argument they made here and they're making the trial is that even if the f c c is right and this was all an alter ego sham to make this estate planning device the proceeds to the house this revert back to their earlier good you're that's exactly right but we do we have the same question because this was filed in florida apparently to create a second for him to try this duplicative issue and that's the important thing to keep in mind with the brazil and now she's in the bahamas the flying dutchman and then i don't even know what the case is about because the actual issue is going to be tried somewhere else that's exactly right and that's exactly why this case was transferred to new york so that this sort of duplicative was sort of read out of the picture and this will be proceeding at the same time in new york but this case although the background is pretty complicated the issues for appeal are pretty simple because of mrs gottlieb's agreement to the dismissal of this case when there was focus on the order to appear and i didn't hear anything misleading about the brief at all that what what are you planning to argue down the road as to the significance of the dismiss shouldn't be doing that case in new york where and now she's entered an appearance of claim defending against that in in stewart in new york so there really was no purpose to the case other than i can't speak to their strategy but it was always duplicat the court properly moved to new york because it's not a matter of florida versus new york convenience for this case it's a matter of everything resolved in new york one time one judge or two cases proceeding simultaneously addressing the same issue at opposite ends of the coast so that's why this was transferred that's why it was sort of treated acted it wasn't tolerated but the court heard everything and at the same time it was going to be solved in one place but ultimately because of the sanction that this is gottlieb agree was appropriate this was dismissed and there's no basis for resurrect now not only did she waiver arguments against the dismissal which would have been the time to raise and you can see any any arguments that perhaps there was alternatives to appearing in person it also limits any reasonable basis to contend that the result would be any different before another judge whether in new york if there was accused for bias which is meritless for the reasons discussed in the brief or if the venue transfer had never been granted it wasn't dismissed on the the merits were reached there was a sanction because she's to skip the deposition she agreed that dismissals are appropriate she said i should be deemed to have been banned in this case by not appearing and it was part of a gaffe or perhaps to pursue the claim in stewart in new york and now request to now participate in stewart and initially there were two parts of this order one was dismissing this action with her agreement the other part was she can't pursue a claim in stewart as by virtue of the same action of skipping the deposition that's basically been lifted i think it's is about in new york and that's what she's trying to stop through the florida proceedings so there's really nothing else to it thank you thank you her claims judge prescot entered an overbroad order that said not only am i going to punish her for what difference does it make now now we read for you what with that victory do well it would do it would do one thing in particular if you held that the decision to transfer this case up to new york was wrong and there are no factors really that satisfy the test when did you pass  what counsel consent to in florida you know they did not count they did not consent to anything when they consent to the only consent i think that's on the table is my consent in the end once the case reached the southern district of new york the dismissal was an appropriate remedy considering the judge you know rejected the arguments that mrs goddard should appear there is a practical thing i ask you what difference it would make if we ruled for you right and you're suggesting that the case would be in florida instead of here now i don't really view that as a substantive distinction you're asking us to spend our time sorting through this very complicated issue which with respect you have not  notwithstanding your undertaking now if we ruled for you what difference would it make that would it wouldn't do any good to say would be back in florida you basically put your thumb on the scale saying that the case well the  gottlieb's have breached this issue and i'm here to represent them that they think have a brief did well that's why you're here you're out of the my for my role is to first of all just try to set a better stage but secondly to protect the ongoing proceeding of which i do represent them it which there is likely going to be a motion made to transfer that case down to florida just on simple venue issues that hasn't been litigated for the story in the other lawsuit that's right but but i understand your if you if you write a decision in this case or issue  order not aware of the scope of what might be happened it's possible it could be a little bit bored of that needs to be and i'm hoping that whatever you write on this at least you lose what do you want to say to say that the the course decision about this issue which is basically mooted by the way because of the consent to this missile if that's what you decide has no bearing on any subsequent motions that might be made to try this jury trial that arises out of florida issue just turn your adversa might be used as some sort of presidential opinion from from the panel about whether a venue motion should be granted changing it to florida the venue was an important thing the gottlieb's don't have money the witnesses are all down there and so as long as as long as he can run on a clean slate and they may win or lose that motion i would be satisfied they got these might want more but as long as whatever you decide is just circumscribed to make sure that you're not impinging on what may happen in the other case i feel like i did my job here