may please the court stephen lynch pro se moscow to new york is a long way to travel for five minutes but this matter is extremely important to me i am thankful for the opportunity to personally appear my request to this court is that the debtors bankruptcy be set aside dismissed alternatively that the rd party releases an ex called patience be stricken from the debtors bankruptcy striking the rd party releases the next call patients is appealed on the basis of the bankruptcy courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction or  authority over my claims against rd parties these are claims that are not against the debt or do not affect the rest of the estate and claims that were not and could not have been heard by the bankruptcy court today i do not address the legal arguments and facts behind that issue that is as well especially in the government's belated but welcome curious also i will not of address the district court's alternative procedural holdings that could dispose of my appeal as i have sufficiently rebutted in brief the flaws in that analysis my main goal striking dismissing this bankruptcy is an appeal that arises from the origins of this case it was fate and rate the petitioners wanted my significant and valuable contractual rights but they didn't want to pay for them repeatedly they tried to get rid of lynch and repeatedly they were thwarted in our agreed form jurisdiction still not willing to pay me petitioners concede to scheme to get from me for free through a us court where they could not get from our commercial contract despite zero nexus to this country petitioners to ciro violation of a pre partition contract manufactured up attempt in bankruptcy in the united states it was all form and no substance to guarantee success petitioners ministerial randomly assigned with that lack of knowledge i followed a series of motions to stop the bankruptcy including a motion for dismissal on bad faith grounds the motions were all denied the order denying bad dismissal was not appealed it was not appealed as bad faith discretion and to the date of any allowed appeal i still lack the knowledge that the judge had not been randomly assigned and therefore i had no basis to challenge his adjudication or the confirmation two months after i could have appealed that faith or objected to the confirmation petitions came clean they wrote that they filed for the judge because he had as they allege presided over related matters and because they thought i would want him both assertions are materially wrong and do not stand the most cursory consideration even if one judge was the appropriate judge to hear this matter why arranges adjudication in secrecy the wall street journal reports the practice of bankruptcy insiders quote avoiding a roll of the dice and quote the insiders  certain of the outcome when that certainty is achieved by breaking the rules and in secret it is unacceptable and must be set aside and i've run out of time so i won't hold a rebuttal just to clarify the answer to your question i'd have to look at the exact days of when the jenner block richard eleven was terminated on friendly terms and when the appeal date was pas the notion of so called judge shopping particularly in bankruptcy here is where people decide whether to go and such and such and jurisdiction because that's the only one where itself improper i understand that and i've educated myself since and i'm aware that some proposed legislation that might change that i question none of that it's simply the case we're the rules were broken and the judge did not have jurisdiction and neither the other party nor the judge knew that the rules had been broken and that he did not have jurisdiction which did not know he did not know and i can't say for certain in terms of the timeline that when it was revealed that the filing had been done without disclosure that was long past my representation status i'm long past the period when i was represented i thank you we'll hear from the other side drains rulings denying the request to dismiss the case it was later voluntarily withdrawn at the same time that counsel withdrawn with respect to the venue questions counsel involved in withdrawing the notice of appeal  i don't know for sure but they were all done roughly on the same day ok with respect to the venue matter there is a rule or a time when it's of that sort of thing it's normally done a month or so after a petition is filed in this case was started mr lynch was represented by some very capable counsel who threw everything they had at us nobody talked about venue respect i filed the case in front of judge train because he had some experience with the yukos bankruptcy case and i wasn't smart enough to know at the but be that as a may that was the primary reason i figured he had some familiarity with the case it might actually help us otherwise going to the merits of the appeal i think that this court can affirm judge mcmahon's detailed ruling  strategic decision not to participate that also matters for his stern claims in the arguments that only the federal district court could actually have entered a final order approving the plan of confirmation supreme court has said that a party can consent to an article one judge entering a final order or one wants to define consent i think that any proposal or decision not to participate needs to be considered deemed consent waiver or forfeiture last but not least on jurisdiction as judg mcmahon found mr lynch actually put his breech claim squarely before judge drain was one of the many theories that he proponent and support of his motion to get this that the case dismissed judge trained explicitly found and we argued this at merits for lack of a better phrase of the jurisdictional point if the court determines to go that route the expropriation clause here which is pretty standard my experience really says that you don't get to go to another court to complain about things that the bankruptcy court use that's correct your honor that that clause simply said in sum and substance that you don't get to go to another court and sue the petitioners or other parties on account of things that the court dealt with including the falling  on my papers thank you you're the thirteen seconds i think respectfully mr mcdermott is wrong there were no retainer agreements in white plains there were no retainer agreements in manhattan there were no retainer agreements in the southern district new york they were in a client account in washington d c respectfully also mr mcdermott is wrong noted no notice of appeal on bad teeth was filed to his credit i made the same mistake in my initial brief to this court i had mistakenly lump them together with other appeals that had been filed bankruptcy my breach claims invoke sixteen clauses of the contract eleven when those clauses were never mentioned in the bankruptcy court three in passing two only because of the loans and i was not a party to the loans notice is not only actual knowledge  timely knowledge in the district court's decision page twelve the judge a judgment man refers to my actual knowledge she never says that i have timely knowledge and the precedents that she cites are timely g c and others  most importantly my indemnity against hundreds of millions of dollars in the netherlands and in england all of which i had to represent and have represented myself since successfully in and so i had a tarantula amount of issues to deal with and i understood that the southern district new york i did have actual knowledge of all that i checked pacer twice a day for the last four years i have actual knowledge of everything i don't have timely knowledge i need it i don't know if i'd had twenty eight have come to a different conclusion i don't know but at the facts of the matter i had a matter of days when you're sitting in washington susan moscow as a pro se party you have to file your papers you have to papers in hard form that requires d h l of minimum four days if nothing goes wrong one of the days in the twenty in the shortened period was a russian holiday as well the the effect was that i had fifty seven days in which to respond to all of this as a pro se party did i answer you and else you can finish up if you  well short of the jurisprudence standards of this great nation to allow this bankrupt to stand is an open invitation to the world's majority shareholders wherever they may be higher skadden arps move or even alleged to have moved a relative pittance to washington d c or rent a mailbox in white plains file there in secret and guaranteed outcome good by minority shareholder and your pesky rights thank you thank you loser decision the final case is on