anderson said he was looking back a for purposes of just turning whether to consolidate the two cases this case and i don't face on in my brief i point out how that explanation is not credible considering the fact that this case was pending for approximately two years and the motion for sanctions in the other case wasn't violent and sol this case had been pending for roughly two years so why would the judge  working on this case for roughly two years all of a sudden there to your point look at the file in the other case to try to determine whether the cases should be consolidated on there was no activity in the other case for that two year period and if he if every time he appeared in court he thought well let me look again should i consolidate these cases he would find out that they be no reason to because of there was no activity in the other case but for some reason some time after june of two in the other case and he's got my motion for sanctions in this case he decides he's going to look at the other cases to decide whether to consolidate them that by itself is not so much of a problem if he looked at the motion in the other case then whatever his decision on consolidation one of the p reported to the parties that he found that this motion for sank you was was filed in the other case and if if he gave the parties an opportunity in this case to respond to what allowed to refile my seventy nine patients motion on the ground that the local rule limiting motion it was ruled on on august twenty court which is completely untrue you know the motions are not the same in any way and he doesn't actually use that as a reason for denying anything but he says he could and  of judge henderson which was a petition i have i will i love mr bork and we didn't do there in part because my clients are tired of the fifteen years of litigation that sounds been continuous against consider it because literally these cases here are well i don't see any reason have we're archippus again but i'll do that later but my point is this all stems from two thousand and three when mr urban and mrs vervain hired mr blewitt to present and pursue a claim for them or for personal injury mr urban was the only one that was injured he was hit by somebody he was only one who injured and in the judgment for such a length of time had so much please so many who are hearing as so much argument that he ended up deciding the quiet title against peabody invited me to take that appeal because he's asking the court for some instruction on that he said that page decisions are well thought i'll well the side and and supported by his understanding of the case that was filed the action that was taken by everybody and his not for this particular drug and you're saying that regardless of that judge he listened to this case he heard this case he saw me in your court in front of them i don't know how many times along with mr blewitt he found certainly because he transferred title during the time when that judgment was revived and the revival was still valid and maybe a fraudulent transfer but we aren't there to add we're talking about simply we game correct and notice to the world well there are there are several memorandum this file and several of them that incorrect and one is in mathematical error in the judge's original judgement so he picks four figures and the young the mathematical result in the thirty thousand dollars difference so he says it could have been this number could have been that number could have been thirty thousand dollars more than this number or thirty thousand dollars more than that  number so he realizes it or thinks that there's the possibility of four possible judgement numbers here we can choose from he chose one that was wrong the appellate court in two thousand and five clearly stated  he's learning from the parties appearing in front of him so clearly looking at the order in the other cases an extra judicial source and the judge relied on that and put it in this opinion in ruling against me on the motions for sa