honour's my clients and i are forced to continue on a case with no protection of an impartial record for review it is as if this case and related cases have already been decided in the district court judge in this case does not record conferences the which is not in the court's individual rules providing any notice to litigants the district court judge has during on recorded aug th two thousand and twenty teleconference order that no motions are permitted the district judge has during a teleconference on march rd two thousand and twenty one openly encourage plaintiffs to move for summary judgment on this case before a framed issue hearing that was previously ordered has been held was i believe that the the issue of the sanction of five hundred dollars in this case judge was tied directly to the motion injunction such as that it's inextricably twelve intertwined with it and therefore there would be there should be a jurisdiction based on all the all the reasons i gave within the letter brief and  i've gone through the case law and judge judge it's a good you so exactly what do you consider a final judgment that is the basis for the appeal well judge there is nothing else for the court to do but to order me to to pay i'm sorry i've already been ordered to pay that five hundred dollars it's a taking a property without due process of the law there was the judge the district court judge herself had indicated that she was relying upon the teleconference in rationale for the the actual ruling and there was no recording of the teleconference i have enough i have no way to present the longer this court the longer this appeal takes the less availability i will have to be able to create a record for later for later judicial review and that is the issue and that i have in this case is that there is there is no opportunity both between the magistrate not permitting written motion practice and the district court judge not allowing recordings i cannot record on a rule one point dollars i'm stuck between these it's a very unusual what's occurred here with tween these two i'm not able to make a motion the issue of i was going to get into in a moment the issue which the judge has i'm sorry the procedure the judge is set up is in violation of both the federal rules and the local rules the joint call provision i was going to give an example on the related case for attorneys called the magistrate judge on january t and on the discovery dispute we received we were told we were going to receive a notice of a teleconference nothing was ever received and all and april th is the closing date of discovery in that case there is an unworkable case  and we'll hear from your adversary thank you judge this is the image you're down from block and associates on behalf of the pal the new full cooperation quite simply as your honor pointed out right from the start the issue here is whether or not this court has jurisdiction over this non rule thirty seven dollars which requires a meet and confer prior to filing a motion in cunningham the court set forth the whole objective of rule thirty seven is the prevention of the lame costs to all the li caused by the filing of groundless motions and in the underlying docket there's been nearly two hundred filings in this case which is just a simple no to action and a guarantee but this case has gone on for five years and the court has noted in his multiple orders it's due to the conduct of the defendant and his counsel and this case we have two orders of the court to directing the parties to meet and confer or filing any motions and mr mead failed to heed those orders even though the orders were clear concise and directed that the parties be can confer before you file a motion there's no outright ban against all motions in fact even after the show cause hearing where mr meet was sanctioned by magistrate judge tomlinson the court actually gave a briefing schedule for his motion as motion was filed thereafter he was not permitted to file a motion before me conferring the court set forth on two separate orders that was required and he failed to heed those orders and that the sanction itself which is doesn't even compensate for the amount of costs and expenses in the lay's which the attorney was fined ten thousand dollars and the costs of all of the list motion practice which caused the other side to inter in this instance here there is no free speech that's violated which m most amount of damage to the other side and to de lay a case which should have been resolved probably five years ago thank you  thank you your honor with respect to the cunningham case i believe i've addressed that in my letter brief i would refer to the court to that as to as to the facts underlying this the counsel reference i strongly disagree in that the problem is there is no record that he says that repeatedly but most of the filings of the plaintiffs it go it speaks to what's in the unfairness that has been so replete with in these proceedings and i think the court can hearing back for an impartial record so that it's at least preserved rather than he's his reference five years how do we know this case is going to get here in the next five years i have to wait wait along for my reputation and for these five one hundred dollars for another twenty three years who