the oral argument statement that i'll be presenting today is roughly five minutes but subsequent to argument if possible and ok i'd appreciate a couple of minutes for rebuttal you know you need to if you want some of you can take three minutes i'm mentioning two minutes far from minor so it's up to you how you want to use your five minutes ok sure so we have my statement and his august first two thousand and seventeen letter motion to district court judge judge allison j meet them requesting that the court strikes all of my opposition responses including my eight affidavits and nearly five hundred pages of pertinent evidence to the defendant's criminal and perjurious motion for summary judgment from the district court docket defendants j p morgan chase and company atolls attorney on szell kaplan stated and i quote defendants and this court should not be burdened with reviewing and responding to these excessive and non compliant filings and quote first off this request is by all means in contravention of graham versus lewinsky haynes vs kerner and vs hopkins even though he made this transgressive request and has said letter motion to judge nathan he provided references from my said opposition responses to support why his motion should be granted as is also obvious and the defendants are police briefs submitted to this court by mr kaplan he critiqued without merit the style of the arguments in my said opposition's responses to j p morgan chase and company atolls criminal and perjurious motion for summary judgment this would mean to anyone of reasonable mind that j p morgan chase and company at hall's defense attorney has read reviewed and possesses full knowledge of the arguments and evidence i presented in my opposition responses to the said defendant criminal and perjurious motion for summary judgment to dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice with that said seeing that the arguments and accompany evidence are wholly stacked against his client to save them from their obvious and overwhelming states of guilt mr kaplan had to come up with a frivolous technicality as in quote unquote the prior to me submitting my opposition's responses to the court and or at the time that mr kaplan submitted his said letter motion however and sadly and gross violation of my fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to procedural due process and at the risk of the integrity of the u s judicial system judge nathan without addressing me regarding any of mr kaplan's issues granted mr kapl letter motion to strike all of my said opposition responses your honour's i'm sorry i'm over may i please have a couple more minutes to finish take another minute you can take another minute we have your papers and we read your papers we have read your papers sure thank you so much your honor to strike all of my oppositions responses including my eight affidavit and nearly five hundred pages of pertinent evidence to his client's criminal and perjurious motion for summary judgment bearing in mind that as per the rule of law affidavits and evidence are not subjected to page limits judge nathan them completely ignored my reports pursuant to eighteen u code section four of the overwhelming evidence that six out of the eight defendant secular it's a lie under penalty of perjury a crime pursuant to eighteen us code section sixteen twenty one and that j p morgan chase obstructed justice by using a black employee to lie on their behalf under penalty of perjury a crime pursuant to eighteen us code section fifteen honor in addition to solidify her ruling granting the defendants a letter motion to strike all of them i said opposition responses to their criminal and perjurious motion for summary judgment when i provided evidence of her erroneous ruling and my aug twelfth two thousand and seventeen motion to the court instead of judge made mooting her ruling granting the defendants letter motion to strike my said submissions please according to robert wittman on behalf of the defendants app elise there are two principal issues before the court on this appeal the first is whether judge nation judge nathan properly deemed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion unopposed after the plant to fail to submit compliant papers in the face of repeated explicit warnings that that would be the result and she failed to do so and the second issue is whether the record in the absence of of compliant opposition papers from the plaintiff whether the record supports judge nathans grant of summary judgment as to the first issue the district court could not have been clear with the plaintiff on numerous occasions she was ordered to submit compliant papers consistent with the court did have special rules for pro se plaintiffs but she did not base her order on those rules she just deemed them to be overly burdensome and directed the plaintiff to submit page compliant papers a fifty page fifty six the plaintiff was given several explicit warnings including in a december fourth two thousand and seventeen order stating that this was the plaintiff's last chance she had been given a number of explicit directives before that were not complied with and as to the substantive issue once the motion was deemed unopposed and fully submitted in light of the plaintiff's failure judge nathan then just did not just proceed to grant the motion but she went through a careful consideration of the full record recognizing both the leniency that is a she was obliged to show toward a pro pro se plaintiff but also that she was not permitted to just accept the statements in the defendant's fifty six point one statement  on their face but she was obliged to do a detailed review of the record and in her opinion a twenty page detailed thorough opinion shows that infection did so unless the court has any further questions will rest on our papers thank you we will reserve i'm sorry i did not understand that's all right we have your papers we will take the case on their environment