morning may it please the court my name is louise for a specific though i am the plaintiff appellant pro se i was sexually abused by my attorney alan isaac as a result of these crimes alan isaac was suspended as a lawyer in the order suspending him as an attorney he made admissions to his crimes to the court that suspended him despite these crimes admissions by the assailant alan isaac i have been denied my day in court and i seek redress to this court this court cannot condone police corruption this is injustice i rely entirely on my opening brief my claims are meritorious based on undisputed factual evidence and well established principles of law my application to the court is timely based on the late hour obtained of the newly discovered evidence i could not have known years ago what became public recently although under normal circumstances a rule sixty b motion must be filed within a year of the judgment there is no time limit for a party to move for relief under rule sixty six based on any other reason that justifies relief or for the court to set aside a judgment based on fraud upon the court see rule sixty d three as established in my opening brief the district court should have set aside the judgment for both of these reasons my motion to reopen was an untimely there was new information that came to light after lieutenant adam lambert i was exposed in the news regarding his improper operation operating procedures only years later with the fact that alan isaac was not arrested because he called in favors would be made known to me lieutenant lam boy and detective r busso told me isaac was going to get arrested the police report reads felony wanted alan isaac will prosecute yes for all the foregoing reason side fourth in my opening brief i respectfully request that the court reverse judge codes decision and remand this case for further proceedings and clued in the right to perform reasonable discovery this is procedure i am assuming that everything you say is true my problem is that we are haven't heard you accept everything you say here but you're wrong but i haven't heard you say why it is one of those relatively few things that a federal court can step in and do something about that's my problem and i'd love to find a way but i haven't heard that well i'm a i'm a woman and i'm a victim of a sex crime and i never was able to get justice and i was d that's my you know that's a fellow civil rights you don't have jurisdiction over denial of smyth of all right not as a general just a general matter just say somebody had a right and was raped or was it that doesn't make it a federal a federal case and and i know it's hard for individual citizens to him to know that but that's that's were basic problem but we are this based on newly discovered evidence or fraud then one cannot bring it as a sixty six motion in any of an emotion or sixty six must be brought within a reasonable time plaintiff here did not bring her motion within a reasonable time not constitute thought on the court aside from being untimely planers will sixty motion is marilyn's because it simply provides purported new evidence to support the allegation of her complaint but the district court already assume the because she failed to raise that contention below and in fact such a relief is not available here because she unreasonably delayed to make a motion and because she failed to demonstrate any fraudulent conduct by the defendants to support such a motion court had presumed all the factual allegations in the complaint is true when it dismissed her complaint a multiple ducal grounds your honour's that fundamental fact has not changed since two thousand and eleven and is the main reason that this court should deny this appeal discovered evidence those are point its own words in her motion she cannot hide from them now in this appeal the evidence is that an unrelated complaint was filed in september two thousand and fifteen against one of the defendants in this action  allegations aren't evidence and they have no bearing on plaintiff's case especially since the district court presumed all of plaintiff factuality since it's true and finally one last point rule sixty d cannot be played to saving grace which argues for on appeal she will sixty be motion should not commence a new independent action under rule sixty and she's failed to provide any evidence of fraud on the court with clear and convincing evidence or really any evidence at all of fraud accordingly respect i will continue to bring up motions to reopen every time new evidence is brought light and why a man that sexually abused me held me hostage try to extort oral sex in exchange for legal representation was never arrested when a police report and detectives and lieutenants were telling me that they wanted to make the arrest but they couldn't because favorites were getting called then they have tonight me an obstruction of justice in this case for ten years and i will continue fighting for that justice until i get that thank you thank you for your time thank her it's not a pro