good morning your honour's my name is richard sax i'm representing myself and the law office of richard sachs defendants and appellants in this case your honour's this case involves claim funding agreements between fastrack and sacrifice i believe in evidence demonstrated that fast track advance sax and his client money for the sole purpose of bringing lawsuits i contend that these facts and the evidence demonstrated that these transactions were champ purchase why would that be mr sachs let me ask you couple of questions in your agreement with fast track if you didn't bring any lawsuits but were able to settle the cases simply on demand litters and by encouraging me to file lawsuits in several particular cases it's of the parties intention up on your question on picking up on your choice of words of encouraging you the determination of whether to file fast track was a contract where the condition of repayment was the realizing of some income or assets  litigation is that correct yes now if you were on a terrible bad streak am aust all your cases right and work be able to negotiate any favorable settlements they wouldn't get paid back with a every if every single case that generated nothing that's correct that so there was no personal liability by to fast track they couldn't come and take your home away in your automobile and your forty one k if you have one there wasn't any personal liability or guarantee by mr sachs to fast track as to any of these advances correct well it's it is not true to the extent that  sax was liable for even of sax hadn't won every single case already even only generated income on one or two cases all of that money would go to fast track so hypothetical they would you're not obliged as mr sachs personally mr or mrs x personally if you live in california to pay back to fastrack unless there are assets that evolve from the settlement or winning of the lawsuit troops yes your thank you answered my question i don't think you had a chance to finish judge jack's without any expenses going to fast track without money going to fast track yes either through you are through them well a i felt like it was not my client's obligation to pay them and maybe i'm wrong about that well they sometime i contract my clients did gets some money what do you mean by some there were some settlements in a few of the cases when you entered into the contracts with fast track star you must have had your clients encourage them to enter into these contracts did you know that they were going to claim that they were used or y  no they did you think they were use or yes they might have been when you entered into the rate of return is quite extraordinary and it is but you entered into i mean you're an attorney yes i yes but i will say that later i had determined that these loans were cham protests under the law of the state of new york and found the case of justinian capital which superiors too well that just an in capital that had to do with them controlling the actual litigation buying the case and doing it themselves they didn't do that here i'm sorry they didn't buy the case and litigated themselves as judge jack no you did correct  the they didn't buy that they didn't they're not pursuing or they didn't pursue the litigation no but they and the able the plaintiffs to pursue the litigation that's not chamfered us what you arguing is to the fact that there was a that these were loans they were using his loans well i believe that the trial court needed needs to go back and fast track fast tracked character characterize the transactions in the documents saying that it was not alone and it was not recourse and so forth but i believe that trial court should have gone into more depth and taken testimony of witnesses well that to see what the what the totality totality of circumstances explain to me why under these circumstances here that we know that these were loans what is a loan let's let's get back to the let's go back to basics how do we know if something is a lo lost every single case there is a promise to repay and you secured does with other cases you should secure the repayment a fast track say with client  into what you consider an illegal contract of fast track i didn't know it was illegal at the time when did you figure it out perhaps a year and a half ago researching the issue of c across the just in the in capital case in the state of new york that applies to these companies that loan money for litigation if you want to save some time for  you want to save some time for through talking about the secondary lines here correct well the secondary agreements the secondary agreements are admittedly a little less forthright and terms of when you read through it if especially an attorney like mr sacks it's extraordinarily clear i believe but this primary cases are also at issue in some instances i believe are there not defendants here the individual that's true you're not different you only defendant here  sachs that's true and it only i'm sorry you can only go against him based on the secondary agreements you know you and i can see him on the on the primary grievance as well there are two causes of action that i which we got judgment in the district that's on the bench on the primary ones yes your honor and not only are they supposed to hold the money they're supposed to notify fastrack when the case resolves through the beneficiary of that part of that agreement that's correct and it is actually a fast track agreement in that what happens is the originally they the underlying plaintiff needs money or for whatever reason and fastrack does not inquire into what the money is for at all but they want money during the pendency of their claim and generally speaking mr sacks would approach fastrack and say here is a case i think it's go ahead i know he raises he says so my clients encourage them well as you pointed out one of your owners pointed out he makes the final decision and we certainly if he would be breaching is ethical juvies if he allowed a rd party to say you must file this case that doesn't happen and so the underlying plaintiff then signs the contract he agrees to be in the fifty's sherry we have no idea when the case settles that's part of his obligation and that is under the on the underlying one on the secondary goal is it just discourse the so just to finish that out on the nd cause of action what did you actually recover with respect to those primary clients that actually recovered some money we haven't recovered i think they i think there might have been ten thousand dollars at one point but basically that the damages that we prepared and the damages paying off the attorney and you the client didn't get anything that's right and we fast track it's not quite to go after somebody who didn't get anything so really what we're really talking about here for all intents and purposes is the are the secondary contracts against mr saks primarily yes your honor that's correct i think you know there may be one or two out there that most of them i don't know if the secretary contracts are all tied to a few other litigation any other litigation that he has in any other recovery right there pledged their pledge at another after another well that's exactly right and therefore it's into germany that well that's exactly right but it doesn't have to be that extraneous there for example and i had set forth an example my lovely notes and we've just been questions my goodness but with that said if if you looked at one example that i had set out here if you purchase sample let's say fast track it invested one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars in the primary case what happens in the way these secondary contracts come about is that the for whatever reason they feel they need more money i don't know they decide they need experts what have you they need more money well fastrack has done some due diligence but doesn't really get into it and but when they come and ask for more money they look at what they're of al you ation of the case was what the strength of the case was and they said yeah i don't know that's going to be more than we think that's going to return and so we will do it but we want you to pledge your attorneys fees and they take a selection of cases now let's say on that one hundred and twenty five when you have five or six cases depending on it doesn't have to be that extreme of a bad streak in other words we all know juries are can be interesting outcomes shall we say and so the idea here is that there is always and the district court walked through this beautifully that there was always a risk the amount is always at hazard and that is one of the hallmarks of a loan and in fact i think the court queried what the true nature of it is well not only to the  court walk through that beautifully going through new york capital case pretty much characteristic by characteristic to conclude these are not loans the controlling law in new york is a case called cash for cases brunetti and i've got  not the same as mine but nevertheless they walk through it also and the defendant in that case argued that the at the high rate of of actual return that was possible rendered this as a serious loan and the court looked at it and said no and even in that one though it was well well over the interest rate in new york the court looked at it and said no and it was only after receiving proceeds which is the same thing here by the way mr sacks point blank said in his mended answer he said he suddenly realize he had every intention he said of paying them but he suddenly realized after he was sued so after loan there is always a hazard there is no definite period for repayment sophisticated parties and even the underlying plaintiffs were counseled by a sophisticated attorney he's been practicing for forty years and there's no impact there's no pressure for them to take this agreement a great of this they don't need to i mean if they want the money we were happy to help but they don't need to so there's no pressure it's not a contract of adhesion in the sense that they're being forced to do it they're sophisticated is there ever such a case in our in our society that something is so i don't slam down i would i would venture to say that the juries i've dealt with i would not want to say that is if it was conceivable that there was an absolute future cases on the secondary contracts were such that no it was now you had been no your honor he did not and furthermore you got basically you know in new york as here it's a fair amount of defense it's a very strong bar he really brought no facts to suggest that this was usury as loan or that the that was that was the amount was never at hazard or anything like that really brought no facts and on the other levels kelli press and i cited many of them in the supplemental your honor and they're all coming up the same way as are california cases i mean the just a quick hello did a lovely job of walking right through it and carefully if they if at the end of the day there is always a risk and there's no determinant place time when the money needs to be paid the face of the schedule goes out i think five years and yet there's no requirement that anybody pay that and there's fine print underneath that schedule in the contract i'm going to take a loan out on my house and i don't care whether i get fired from my job or whatever i start to pay that back so there is a very distinctive difference that play here and that is that a condition precedent they get some return on that and that action below some he needs to get attorneys fees they need to get an award or we are we get nothing when they have banned in the cases they did with which a co that's it we're done we don't get any money back so it's different than alone in a very very critical way your honor i have one last question for on the pledge cases on the secondary contracts who makes the decision that those are going to be the pledge kate i mean are they actually identified th on that i provide you a declaration but i believe that many of them are cases that were already as primary cases and so then they were pledged to back it up there but let me ask one last critics i haven't never seen since i never practice law i have no idea who is working i learned a great deal reading about that's what keeps life interesting is that your honor never never ceases to amaze one about what's going on out there  applications so it's it's just useful to now to do some due diligence i think everyone has that obligation or thank you thank you nic appreciate your time ok thank you i would like to point out that justinian capital case is still good law in new york i think it applies directly to the facts of this case opposing counsel hasn't ever really addressed justinian capital the trial court and even though it was the basis or main thrust of our opposition to the motion for summary judgment the trial co did not address the justinian capital case either when you did the one case where the fast track got ten thousand after your attorneys fees was that after your attorneys fees are how how did you calculate that  exactly sure what specific case that was well when you the times that one or more times that you have reimbursed fastrack based on your secondary contract did you st adopt expenses and attorney's fees before you reimbursed think that may be correct but that's it that's all it ever been paid and how much did they if they put forward a behalf of these cases approximately one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars ok did you take out  expenses plus attorneys fees before you paid back fast track no you never charge your client for expenses before you paid back at a fast track that's how it should have worked i