my name is russell miles and i'm here representing mr paul holds he and his law firm i'm joined by sheree duran in the stor frazier really as the court knows we are here because the trial  dismissed our case it based its decision on recur feldman i plan to use my time with you this morning addressing the record feldman doctrine and the to this case was wrong and here's why the u s supreme court in exxon versus saudi basic industries a two thousand and five session and then in two thousand and six in lance the dennis reminded us that the scope of application of the rotor felt and doctrine is indeed very narrow the core reminded us that application of that doctrine is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name cases like recur cases like felt and where a litigant loses in a state court matter and then proceeds to a federal district court files and action there challenging the state court decision taking in essence an appeal to that court asking the federal district court to review and then reverse the state court judgment seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by the state court decision the court system a court decision here what a state court decision you're talking about here there will your honor that is a question that takes us to the crux of this appeal there there i thought you was going to say it was the supreme court because it well the supreme court decision up north of soccer a lot of south carolina that's what you would say that's what i would say ok that's what i'm good at and there is nothing that could be appealed from what occurred in the state tha that your honor that is precisely what the u s supreme court told us and acts on and in lance you asked two questions to determine whether the record feldman doctrine should apply  judge king is does the plaintiff come to you as a loser in state court proceedings if not recur feltman does not apply if the going to be would be that the district court though your plaintive comes to you as a loser in a state court proceeding the next question is this is that plaintive challenging a state court decision is he asking the do speak of challenging joy rectally the judicial decision of the state court but you are precisely correct what the the plaintiff in a typical or a classic ripper fellman case would be doing is seeking redress for any injury he or she alleges was alleges was caused by the state court decision and that is the nd question that that more than a description of a set of circumstances i think the circuit the court they are divine he used the word conclusion a conclusion of a set of circumstances where her feldman should apply again to to to to recap that issue where a litigant who has lost in state court comes to federal court and seeks to have that court review and reverse a  necessary or should be addressed racial feel your are the from from my view of things that is the only issue that is addressed one of the appeal that is the only appeal issues that were not decided below and that would be our position if i may given that backdrop does should  of the supreme court of south carolina said there was no default or should have been no injuries of the fall and the supreme court of south carolina remanded the cases to the trial court sent the parties back to the  to start a new what happened then we know there was discovery there was a trial on the merits and we had an entirely different result as we mentioned just a moment ago end of that trial in this july house seniors case the jury found against mr a white house senior and found in favor of mr holes he and his wall firm he was a winner in that case so mr hall z your honors did not go to that federal district court in south carolina as it was moreover and more importantly he did not go to that federal district court challenging in any way any state court decision contrary to judge duffy's analysis just rushing there is no claim in our complaint that seeks free dress of an injury injury allegedly caused by a state court decision again at the end of the  proceedings in south carolina mr holes he was the winner there is no claim contrary to judge duffy's analysis that asked a federal court to review or reverse any state court decision and there is contrary again to judge duffy's analysis no claim or cow in our complaint it is based on an allegation that mr holes he was entitled to discovery in those default judgment receives again your r s proceedings that were completely baked hated entirely set aside overturned by the south carolina supreme court we address the inexplicably intertwined doctrine that is essentially the the entire response of the defendants in this case they not create a separate independent tests to determine if the ripper feldman doctrine should apply at the bottom of this issue the straw polls he came out of the court system in south carolina as whether he does not ask a federal court to do anything to take any action at all with regard to anything that occurred by that state court system in south carolina rick or feldman should not apply here  civil rico case for off by a plate of seeking damages allegedly suffered as a result of mortgage foreclosures that happened due to falsify that today's what chose not to in the case and here the court found that seeking as damages legal fees loss of property value in the rest of it while not directly trying to set aside foreclosure which is one of the reasons why roger this really is  go that's correct your honor on those grounds where raises most of this mess yes i understand it lest i don't know i don't dispute that at all there were a but they were not addressed by the district court so there's nothing for us to review in the context of a decision by the truth and and the inference is in our favor so that's his the defense characterization is not what is alleged in the complaint simply not relevant to our allegations and they simply were not answer mr holt he was not aware of the facts that gave rise to the rico claim so about time he became aware of the existence of the claim  he could not have been brought in state court and it certainly was not compulsory that it be brought in state court you're going to but if you don't know the answer you don't know the answer correct john that's a good answer well that's that's the one i'm go state state court was not the same as in the federal litigation but was issues state court was whether mr whole the head defamed the law houses what is it issue in this case obviously rico allegations against the law houses and others  is also mentioned the dismissal with prejudice in the district court mr holt he certainly did not lose based on a dismissal with prejudice that's a resolution in his favor he's happy with the dismissal with prejudice