i guess i would draw the court's attention what i believe is controlling the situation mohammed vs wal mart store was cited in our brief it's twenty admits and three affidavits in a state court that he knew the gun was in the car respectfully i would draw the court's attention to the entries in those three affidavits and they do not indicate that he knew the gun was in the car the first one is in the appendix a six hour wait that one is dated the twelfth of december twenty third team and all three of these were submitted before justice solomon decided to dismiss the indictment so in that one ramirez states after learning from jacqueline bond stay gold that she wore it a weapon with her in her automobile so he learned it from her i pulled the car to the curb and took our daughter with me into the port authority terminal thus removing her from any potential hong next one is in the appendix a mean then that he did it while he was travelling  i don't believe so change i think that respectfully as soon as he learned that he pulled it to the curb and he took a route and into the port authority didn't happen to be the port authority they were having to go by and they were headed somewhere else yes well he no he wasn't going to port authority but he pulled over he had to be there when he when she started going crazy and making all the statements and then including in the statements i brought my gun with me on a three o four in the appendix it was his affidavit on the twenty seventh of january given her erratic behavior was given to show why i was concerned on april twenty seventh two thousand and thirteen when i reported to the port authority police that she had said she had her gun in the car that's how he learned about it she had said she had the gun in the car he had no knowledge of it before and he's insisted on that from the very beginning the last affidavit he filed on the twenty second of april twenty fourth teen which was about a week before judge solomon came down with his decision in unary says i had no knowledge that jacqueline bounced i don't have what the firearm with went to new york city until she made that statement in front of the port authority even then i had not seen the firearm i had no prior knowledge of the presence of the firearm nor that i have a control or possess it further i was not located in the  with regard to it's important i think for the court to view the fact that the defendants never served and the pretrial in this matter went i think f about august maybe july to the coup or the smiths did the complaint in the same but twenty eight at no time in a period of time here the district court yes i'm sorry i'm at no time in that period that any of the fans pharo a safe harbor notice and i would submit that that sort mind they didn't believe anything in here was frivolous or anything of that nature or you know it's up to it's up to a party that the the the rule rule eleven specifically give those parties the right to bring a motion that the district court can also bring in order to show cause to respond today that's correct you're on a no question but what the district court did here was they the district court brought the so respon and it dismissed the complaint that the brings to solicit monterey motion can technically do that i suppose technically you can do that but i think there is case law now that's not what should be done  what the court the in this case on january nineteenth twenty sixteen was it invited the findings to make submissions general that my reasons are in the twenty one page opinion that she gave for misrepresentations and omissions never specified what misrepresentations or what omissions and then there is significant case law that makes that a requirement that that notice be given finally on the nineteenth of january after she found appellant's response to that our response was inadequate then it stated that the misrepresentation is the misrepresentation with knowing that the gun is in the car and the omission of failing  phone call isn't part of the complaint it's not and this complaint was no i'm sorry the allegation in part rested on racial profiling undermine the vision of he wasn't calling attention to himself he was notifying them that somebody else who owned the gun who owned the car had told him i have a gun with me in the car and i don't believe in what's going on in politics and anything else she ranted on in that regard so based on that he took his daughter and got out and went and made a phone call that's reporting a crime doesn't make you part of the crime you're not you're not that i think the argument is the responded to the scene and to him specifically because he called them to the scene is a fact that you need to know in the context of this complaint for it not to be misleading every everyone everyone who's a party knew the phone call they had all that information it was used constantly for the four or five month period if the court was was so upset by the way the complaint was drafted or the court had to do was make that known i would have taken that out the firm would have taken it out we would have left whatever elements remaine we would not have ignored it if if if we had been notified someone had said that you face sanctions when there was the one conference not with me but with my associates and it's been made part of the record i think it's s dismiss this or anything like that or indicate in the least that you're facing if you refuse to do that you're facing sanctions would have been done who sanctions sanctions were being imposed due to the misrepresentations and emissions contained in the complaint which were specifically referenced in the december twenty eighth two thousand and fifteen opinion an order which dismissed the case and granted the defend therefore he was fully aware of the facts and circumstances considered surrounding the sensitive also the court gave mr mahoney at least three separate opportunities to greg to misrepresentations he animations contained in the complaint first the core allow him to do so when the district attorney defendants moved to dismiss given the opportunity to amend the complaint mr mahoney amended the complaint and did not remove any of the time did not know yes not that he just had found out about it i thought that the facts were that he just found out about it and then stopped and went into that right now the complaint to says that he ever m not know that there was a farm in the car and asserted that his arrest was due to racial profiling on the other hand the affidavits in the cape that he knew that there was a gun in the car one off a day that indicates that he knew what he was driving while he was driving along knew that there was a gun in the car and as soon as he knew there was a gun in the car he went into the police and you're saying that's not not the complaint says that he did not know there was a farm in the car and a sort of the was used that his are rescue and racial profiling mr if he's crying that he was racially profiled has a spanish male but he was not because the reason he was arrested and there was probable cause for it was because he was the one who reported that there was a gun in the car so these are all misrepresentations in emissions that led to the imposition of sanctions this but but it all has to do with whether he knew there was a gun in the car and the reason i say that is because the evidence you're talking about is consistent i think and the omission seems to me to be consistent with the notion that he didn't was not aware of the gun in the car until he pulled up in front of the bus terminal right now on the other hand it certainly seems clear that he when he got out and went into the past and made the call at that point he certainly didn't know there was a  left the car and made a phone call or did he not discover that there was a gun and until he was in front of the bus to know and as soon as he discovered it well those are all the a contradictory statements that mahoney was the attorney for mr ramirez and in his capacity as a defense attorney my office disclosed to him multiple statements that his client need a good knowledge in his association the gun the complaint alleges at no point in his interaction with the police officers was the plaintiff within the vicinity of the aforementioned handgun nor did he have any knowledge of it being in the autumn of bill while he and j p were traveling right that's on a team did he make did he submitted an affidavit in the criminal case that contradicts the statement that he had no knowledge of the gun while he was traveling yes your honor not just  told by his girlfriend sure so the affidavits the narrative in the affidavit is that while he was driving and believe it was through the tunnel into new york city that he learned that there was a gun in the car and that he made the determination that they were going to drive to the port authority and he was going to come up with an excuse to go inside the port authority and so in addition to to those affidavits your honor there's also statements that he need to police that we disclose in connection with our voluntary disclosure form where he was that wasn't there also evidence on the other side you know question of whether because she was evidence on one side and on the other side he might very well last but wasn't there also evidence in an affidavit that he did his own affidavit to december whatever why did he take that you know no no no that's not what he says he says i had no knowledge that the woman had brought the firearm with her to new york city until she made that statement in front of the board right so but then if you compare that to the complaint right that he filed in the district court when he initiated this lawsuit he says i had no knowledge of the gun whatsoever so i mean the complaint is that a sixty two to eighty and the amended complaint is that a one thirty to one fifty and it's actually the same sequence of paragraphs because he didn't amend it even after i filed a motion to dismiss that contain documents that suggested that it was false so that's going to be a paragraph twenty seven three thirty two where he talks about the gun would even be discovered in the car and that he had no connection to it and that's plainly not true based not only just on the affidavits your honor that where is there evidence that he knew while they were traveling in the car that there was a gun and if you turn to page five eighty three of the appendix which is the people's voluntary disclosure form which we would have disclosed to mr mahoney at his client's arraignment on his indictment there's has a statement attributed to that said while driving i did know that the gun was in the car but even his statement that he learned about it while he was in the course of traveling which is in the affidavit is consistent with the fact that he knew about the gun that was in the car but i think that the bigger problem your honor is the fact that the complaint makes it appear that the police descended on him for no reason that it was racial profiling that they had no basis to approach him when in reality he's the one that called the police and ask them to respond and even you know even beyond that in fact your honor that the that misleading allegation was in the complaint even after throughout the course of th but he didn't say that in the complaint and that's the exact problem that's the exact problem so it's of the affidavits in the criminal case and his statements to my office that were videotaped his statements that he needs the police officers they all say one thing and  when he filed a civil suit he made a transparent attempt to disassociate himself from the gun and make it appear that there was some racial animus that even prompted the police to approach him in the first place i believe my time is good morning your honour's may it please the court my name is meghan mont home and i represent apple use the city of new york commissioner bratton and the n y p d my colleagues have addressed the probable cause analysis and i'm happy to answer any additional questions the panel has about that matter but i do want to focus on two other points that factored into the district court's analysis in sanctioning mr mahoney but the first of those is mr honeys lack of good faith in naming the n y p d and commissioner brennan as defendant in this lawsuit neither the complaint nor the amended complaint included any allegation that either commissioner bratton or anyone n y p d officer had any personal involvement in the events underlying this complaint despite that he continued to include them in his pleadings and oppose their motion to dismiss the second point i want to emphasize is mr mahoney lack of familiarity with the statutory notice of claim requirements for filing state law causes of action against the city of new york compliance with those in timely compliance with those is a condition precedent to suit against the city of new york and its agencies here mr m colleague represented to the court during a conference in october of two thousand and fifteen that they had certainly complied with those requirements the court directed him to provide the city with the notice of claim and when he did so a few days later it was apparent that the notice of claim was extremely untimely not only was it served after the ninety day time period provided for in the statute but it was served after the statute of limitations had expired on those claims and they just your court at that conference had urge circumstances exacerbated the effects of the the emissions from the complaint in the false impression that mr mahoney gave about the basis for his client civil rights claims i would suggest that even mr mahoney's presentation here today suggests an unwillingness to take responsibility for his own role in the situation as he suggests the district court should have told him that he had an obligation under rule eleven when as an attorney representing clients in federal court it's responsibility each undertake a reasonable inquiry and to put forward only factual assertions that have an evidentiary basis the city believes in a case like this sanctions serve an important purpose for deterrence and for these reasons we does this court to affirm the that's another reproduction as an exhibit to the d a s motion papers and the district court was focused here on paragraphs twenty six thirty thirty or about that range those paragraphs a number the same in the original complaint in the and a complain that that request to the defendants essentially violates rule eleven because it allows you the findings to bring them over here or here  the rule of infections them as you and your so stick to that well that's what i'm trying to do judge i'm sorry that the basis for imposing the sanctions impost and it's been argued in the findings briefs at least one of the briefs has to do with what they raised after that invitation by the district judge she gave that invitation they raise that before her they braze that again in their briefs here and what i'm submitting is that that violates rule love and because  where they sit they have to bring a motion and rule eleven has certain requirements for that motion and the court is essentially giving them a cover to ride on  to get around complying with rule eleven i'm not saying that a rule eleven motion a court doesn't make a rule eleven motion but essentially here the fans are invited make a rule eleven motion oh here it even though the case has been dismissed back in the summer so i would submit that anything they've raised in any of those points aren't eligible on this appeal the the court even even the two points that the court raised misrepresentation and omission there is no misrepresentation i have read i learned while we were traveling through the tunnel that she had her gun with her that's not a statement that's note that's taken down by one of the police officers in their little box and this went on for about three and a half hours from the initial when they stopped the car when i pulled up  in five eighty two five eighty three mahoney yes i was aware of that but it's not a statement in the sense that you were you were at the police station and they sit you down they devise you your rights he was all upset and this went on for about three and a half hours it wasn't until nine thirty or ten o'clock that they finally sat down and they filled out a complaint against my client so and they questioned him for three hours off and on of this police officer comes in you know what about this what about and yet when they go to get an indictment and just the solomon points out and in his opinion when they go for the indictment nobody was called to testify in the grand jury no police officers there was there was nothing that's why it had to be dismissed the police officers are making the arrest they're supposed to be able to present probable cause they couldn't do that the d a s office couldn't call a police officer to put together a nuff for probable cause so given that to bring the civil lawsuit i don't think that that's absurd or anything like that i mean the indictments are not from one out every day of the week it's unusual to say the least that indictments are dismissed on a motion and in this case as isn't that wasn't that the basis for the state or its ruling well to corroborate the accomplices testimony yes but if any police officer had anything that would be probable cohorts so i don't i don't mean to go around in a circle but you need probable cause that's like first base you get to first base well then you go second record but they never got the first place thank