in this particular case the lawsuit was filed so this is what i would have to add this case that was filed we're talking about here all involve claims pretty much that pre dated the settlement agreement that was entered into between bridgeport and tillman jones in two thousand and seven and we're familiar with what the this is my point is a lawsuit and the others motions but this is my point their argument yes i do and if you can if you indulge me for one second because i think this is important they knew at the time they filed this lawsuit that it was barred by the settlement agreement the only reason they filed the first case the only reason they filed the first case seeking to set aside the settlement agreement well because they wanted to use these stale claims these released claims to obtain a settlement from bridgeport on claims it been released so they filed the first case knowing that there was no basis to set aside that settlement agreement the grounds of fraud to use it as leverage for this case and to obtain a settlement in this case that is precisely what the janky court said is their mode of operation mr reed was not the only one of all with that mr tennis was involved with that it was all one big picture and the bridgeport first smith case that's not before this panel but which the sixth circuit awarded sanctions against mr tennis for filing a frivolous appeal for a dollar was basically filed at the same time so this litigation was all filed as a package in order to extract a fraud settlement agreement a settlement that was not deserved there is you cannot claim that twenty thousand dollars will deter a scheme like that when these lawyers mr reed in particular has been engaged in this type of conduct for many many years i wouldn't i wouldn't i would state your honor that of all the lawyers in this courtroom i know i have never been sanctioned for ruhleben and i wouldn't i would bet that virtually everyone standing here then it's going to be for your own as has never been these lawyers have been sanction times they filed this entire litigation as a package to extract a settlement that they did not deserve i receive a phone call demanding a million dollars in forty eight hours and so the point being your honor that this he can come in here mr tenet say i'm contrite i want to appear contrite i'm asking is how is twenty thousand dollars sufficient when there's a finding by the district judge that you were harassing the defendant and given the four squares of the the language of the release that you had signed previous to initiating this particular lawsuit was twenty thousand dollars on those circumstances fission to deter you want to talk about the nature of this second lawsuit if i may because it puts it in context the rights that we're talking about we're talking about copyright interests that were on the wait a minute i'm dealing with the district court findings that you harass the lawsuit was filed this or harassment purposes and then given the language of the four squares of the release that have been case was was dismissed before whatever we got the schedule ordered the i am deterred because my claims were for declaratory judgment the the life of mr tillman's copyrights its intellectual property has rights in the future i was th claim was to get clear title to those rights to say that tilman heirs had rights to those musical copyrights for the rest of the life of the term of the copyrights i was mistaken i felt that i felt that the term of the release i was going for future claims for the future life of the copyright of that copyright interest for example but doesn't doesn't the the release itself say future claims what i was known or unknow bro it doesn't deed but at the same time there was a there was a shelf life and are still has a shelf life of those copyrights that's the that's the mistake that i made in this believing that i could kind of the equivalent quiting title to the property was looking at it from an intellectual property stamp that's not answering the question though as to why twenty thousand is enough to deter you frankly from doing this again why would i can completely say that my time with this deterred because there will be no other future action i'm deterred in the short term the medium term and the long term and here's why in the short term that i am i have this stigma of the sanction in the in the medium term i am deterred because i will go back and look at how i practice law that's what that's the take away from the sanction and then i will not get involved in cases that have these prior adjudications and this and the summit that's where i made the mistake of what maybe it was i'm not going to i'm not going to use the phrase of looking for a way for zealous adequate advocacy but i was searching for a way to assist the tillman heirs to reclaim at least some of the rights going forward it was barred by the release in the record consider myself under oath i did not have any contact with mr reid prior to him making that that that phone call to mr bush in mr reed's mind i do subject i believe it was in his way of making a settlement offer but i had no part of that i was not involved in that  and i don't know what that conversation entailed i do understand it was taken as a as a as an unsupported demand for money to decide you know mr reason to settle the case but mr bush has taken position that it's extortion i apologize for that i wasn't aware of it i wasn't part of it let me ask you a question about the case law can you cite to us are you aware of any case where you had findings of the nature that the district were made here namely that there was harassment utterly without legal or factual support etc and there's a sanction award the lawyers reasonable but i also go back to like to end my comments maybe maybe where i started is to say that both the award of a sanction and the determination of the amount are issues of discretion to be employed by the district court judge judge america certainly was exasperated and expressed his consternation with me through his orders but by issuing the distance of the sanction that was within his discretion and so was my nephew's in the marines but judgment judgment was on the front line of that he wasn't gauged completely in this in this inquiry and he made his ruling there's been no showing that his ruling was clearly erroneous or  rises to the type of error that should be disturbed with respect to the issues in the cross appeal i can only i can only say that i believed that with this particular case by fi declaratory judgment count for a copyright the still had a useful life that it was trying to get for the future rights the quite title that was most i was mistaken and we have not appealed those underlying issues likewise i have not i'm sorry you did appeal but i'm confused no not the underlying the underlying dismissal of of the merits i don't don't don't there is nothing and likewise there is no motion or request before this panel in any form to somehow stay the amount of the sanction i paid the amount of the sanction and you're appealing the sanction order i'm only if only because there was an appeal i did across appeal on the amount to the extent the court feels that they are not you not challenging the award as i thought you were at this point you know at this point based on the based upon based upon the argument today and in all candor because i take responsibility first i would withdraw the cross appeals in both in both ever ever appear before interview again i can only hope that it will not be in this situation and and if it is if it is then it would be a pattern of contact ok honor asked about another case where then how would you distinguish the red carpet case easily because in the red carpet and the pizza case the court did not find that the action was filed for posting from inception what the court found was that some point it became clear to the party that he was going to win and at that point there was a need to do something about it there was no case where a court made a finding that from inception it was frivolous found that the party was entitled  reasonable fees and then awarded one tenth of fees not one case ruhleben and one hundred twenty seven are not just for the turns it is to reimburse the party for the fees and costs that they where there are cases that we cite that talk about the reasonable tourney season being awarded a reasonable tourney see for the wrongdoing and what and i guess the point is that there is no case that i've been able to locate whatsoever were a court made the finding that's been made in this case which is that from inception there was a frivolous action filed and then only awarded one tenth of the fees without explaining why given all the facts here twenty thousand dollars would be sufficient for deterrence you know for what it's worth i do sympathize somebody who practiced and i didn't deal with what you dealt with but i do sympathize with what you've gone through in this case and this kind of this kind of practice is what makes the practice sometimes just miserable well and so whatever shakes out you know you've been heard on that point well i appreciate that your honor but who really deserves a simply because this is what i do for a living is my client who has had to has had to suffer through having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and incredible stress and everything else related to this he's an elderly person and this is not what this is not appropriate and he should not have to pay the price for having to undergo years of this thank you thank you council will be submitted