us government sponsored media outlet directly leading to an escalating series of death threats my life has never been the same as a pro se l o m student i concisely summarized for the district court many essential changes that i needed to make to my complaint over the months that followed i i was never granted leave to amend nor any fair hearing whatsoever following my many requests and notifications including on april  and eighteen again i was never granted leave to amend despite countless errors of law and erroneous assessments of the facts the truth has has only become more facially apparent during the exceptionally short life of this civil action at the district court level and throughout the many months since despite these countless problems the denial of leave to amend is the biggest issue here today among many r in they agreed with my arguments on the st and rd the st and th element of lynn versus era bank they took issue with two specific elements and they get just as to set the stage influence government policies or affect government so that let me just give one example from my initial complaint on page thirty four the political campaign  communications director said based on this article using this article as a as a basis quote it's like a batman movie i mean that is you know it's but it's reality but that's how many different crazy story lines and villains and people who are involved and this same political campaign paid for the sources for this which was mr christopher steel so you know this week or the week after the motion to dismiss by the government the u s attorney june kim filed his motion to dismiss this case and or he the say the following week he charged with other terrorism related offenses i closely followed this case since the local new york attorneys had such inconsistent standards for their pleadings there was much more in terms of that same metric the intimidate or coerce the civilian population the world quickly returned to normal with this  from the false false articles by the defendants continue to this day it's a great honor to be here and you know the counsel to the defendants in the very last case we heard  in a another case pleaded in the southern district of california cited my case just last month and talking about how it directly implicates matters of public concern the real matters of public would like to add a conspiracy charge and that is directly on the basis of ashcroft vs a ball it is you know it's plausible on its face in if you agree with some of the top leaders in the us congress including former chairman of the house intelligence committee who has explicitly talked about conspiracy and as i as i just mentioned the campaign director who for our campaign communications director who paid for that was working very closely with the head director interactions with the with the defendant oath and there are and there are subsidiaries in fact as as i noted to the district court on page eight hundred and eighty five the author of the initial article specifically mentioned the head and the co founder of fusion simpson who is the really you know a key part of that conspiracy again i do not want to put too much emphasis on that because i included a vest a number of additional claims which i would like to add and i think over the over the months which of which have come since we can keep seeing more just yesterday the chairman or the inspector general for the department of justice sent a letter to the  judiciary committee lindsey graham saying that after reviewing millions of documents related to these alleged crimes they are going to finally release this very complicated report on  the f b i director have to do with exhausting claims against the board of governors for the agency your honor when this report comes out on december th there is literally as the inspector general has already a eighty two and eighty three there is already significant evidence which greatly exceeds the ashcroft versus standards but again there is there is much more to come and i was i was hoping to be able doctor pages three claims against my client all are based on articles that were published by media outlets that are actually subsidiaries of and all are based on alleged false reporting of dr page face we go through in our briefing the four different elements of that claim and how they weren't satisfied here may also explain how dr page's actually pointing to the actions of other people such as the readers of these articles  the death threats against him to try to satisfy these elements but for now suffice to say that publication of a news article is just simply not an act of international terrorism now without that federal claim  the merits of dr page's state law claims are irrelevant here and they were not considered below because the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over them now the st possible basis o those claims would have been supplemental jurisdiction but the district court properly dismissed dr page's only federal claim his terrorism claim on the merits and without that claim there was no reason to hear the state law claims and that's especially true given that the case was dismissed very early in the proceedings discovery had been stayed and so there had not been any expenditure of judicial or party resources the other possible route to subject matter jurisdiction of these claims would have been diversity jurisdiction but the district court properly concluded there that there was no diversity jurisdiction and that's because dr page actually admitted in his complaint that both he and oath are citizens of new york now after his complaint was dismissed he did try to amend and retract that admission that he was a citizen of the state of new york but there are he basically wanted to argue that he lives a quote unquote fugitive lifestyle and has been living quote unquote in various temporary homes outside of the state of new york essentially what he wants to argue is that he's not a citizen of any state that he's a stateless party there are two fatal problems with that argument the st is that it directly contradicts his original pleading and therefore it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny him leave to men given that it would directly contradict what he had admitted in his original complaint and the case on point for that proposition as described in our briefing austin a nd circuit case and dr paige argues on appeal that he should be given leeway because he's pro se but the plaintiff in austin was pro se as well and secondly even if dr paige could retract this admission that he's a citizen of the state of new york and advance this theory that he is not a citizen of any state that theory goes nowhere because this court has repeatedly ruled that parties who are not citizens of any state such as indian tribes or united states citizens that are domiciled abroad cannot establish diversity jurisdiction under the plain language of the statute and lastly dr paige had originally appealed from the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order however he explicitly banned in that argument in his reply brief at page twelve and if there are new questions the federal tort claims act claims st there is simply no subject matter jurisdiction for district court to entertain claims of libel including defamation or thorsten if you're an swith contractor or perspective business relations against the government  and even if the court did there is a manager a stiction because mr page failed to exhaust as administrator remedies to assert those claims as for the terrorism claims which mr page raises under the anti terrorism would be pointless for all the reasons you already stated to the extent that there's any possibility of amending to bring a claim against ready for europe that would also be pointless as the state mutations on any kind of state law defamation claim has already run honor i meant to the extent that there's any effort to name radio free europe for instance which would be the proper actor for the allegations that claim of course would be brought against the government but it would be brought against it as a private sta minutes thank you your honor there are many accurate points that the government and oath have stated there are many elements which are very far off and incomplete and again i would highlight my my opening remarks where i have just asked for leave to him and i think there is significant additional evidence which which i started to i had a very limited amount of  space in which i could start to describe this as only allocated a very just a couple of pages by the district court and unfortunately i have not been able to add that  claims on page eight thousand and ninety six dollars and with the additional footnote on page a one hundred and two dollars which adds a significant amount of additional claims and with respect again given the limitations of space i was not allowed to at the tremendous amount of administrative steps i took with the f b i and agents of the counterintelligence division here in new york in march of tw this well with with respect to i had asked to in accordance with the f t c a i had asked to change that to united states united states as a codefendant and which which would allow me to encompass the and my initial claims which were not perfectly pleaded but i started you know in accordance with many pro se cases in this in this court there should be as in  vs federal board of prisons there should be review with special saw solicitude and there must be must the pleadings must be construed liberally and interpret interpreted to raise the strongest arguments they suggest and that example about my new york a legend residence i had a very long description of what these terror threats had done to my life and unfortunately they were completely ignored in the in the government