that there was another concerted effort not only to conceal what they had done but more importantly to prevent my client from being able to file a quorum notice or section two days fourteen  statements which we believe are false in intentionally made which i think are important because they go directly to undercut our search in that the mortgage foreclosure was seen by fraud on the floor of the state court a decision of the fabric a sion of evidence to support your case it constitutes fraud on the court and that renders every all of the judgment or judgment orders avoid so there was there was definitely evidence manufactured the collection stocks according to the mortgage foreclosure being confirmed they subsequently attempted to collect the full amount of the of the monies owed even though that which was six hundred eighty thousand yes i believe  well you have to be able to identify the proper sale the whatever's bid is deemed to be the fair market value of the property and the lender is not entitled to any deficiency at that time then they changed their position they saw that they had gotten a deficiency judgment  also the biggest thing is that they need a safe the sure of my client with a five day notice and he's sure to back the back payment of bread and then continue to pay them and they district court's decision we ask that this court affirmed the district court's decision on two basic first any further amendment of these claims would be  this is a complex case this doesn't involve a constitutional issue it doesn't involve unsettled law in fact the law has been decided for decades legal principles in this case form the bedrock of the seventy four counts when a hundred and seventy nine pages these parties included a bank holding company to title companies that had no relationship whatsoever to the fr one line argument about rico that has no connection to the district court proceedings or in fact any reality in this case  included a description of the commercial property and to be fair i'm not really quite sure what the commercial parking argument really there's no dispute here about the property that said issue has in fact i have here with me the condo declaration that is recorded at the recorder of d it's same number that was used throughout the state court workers for closure proceedings but four hundred forty one thousand dollars approximately and so on a deficiency judgment for the difference between what was owed on the note and what the judicial sale but for now again that's a record we have a judgment for two hundred forty six thousand and there's no evidence whatsoever notwithstanding appellants representations that the bank w seeking to get double recovery here the entire amount of the note plus what it did for the property and the foreclosure in fact the bank would not have been allowed to proceed in that setting aside the statute of limitations issues there are no set of circumstances under which the plaintiffs in appellants could ever state a sherman act claiming they have identified no conspiracy or i should say no plausible conspiracy sets of actors no identification of the relevant market and even assuming that that that those could be identified here there's no antitrust injury there must be to consumers as a result of the antitrust violation and what we have is a disgruntled mortgage who did not pay his mortgage that's  the state court and that is what this case is about what happened in the state court did play into pellets have an opportunity to present those arguments indisputably yes they did and in fact they but the district court still had enough in front of it to decide that that in addition to the federal question claims which were few don't they could never say to claim the state law claims were also futile and could never a rule sixty b motion to vacate and front of the district court that motion like the briefs in this court rehashed position that the district court has in fact rejected multiple every time we went before the assignment for his foreclosure judge they made a motion to to move or to a judge who doesn't even serve in the daily center they also filed multiple motions for sanctions against my client