o perhaps not correct correct ok then if if he didn't grant any of the many partial right why doesn't thirty five an eighty five c apply rather your honor it is i stand right i don't know the answer that question by be happy to try and reach so long no no you should know your rolls thirty five eighty five sees as the court may after giving an opportunity to be whether sanctions were appropriate were you well you are through the course of this fortune your case just today various financial challenges mr grover's had to do a lot of legal work himself and so i think that explains the  declaration being incompetent well the didn't the declaration being not is as good as mine as might be desirable well but i doubt without competent evidence i think i think the better argument so you so you can't i perhaps not i'm not on that point but i think a better argument is the five thousand emails that i'll get to that we have time throughout the great grief you appear to question the district courts mark motivations for example page thirty you state that the district court had a quote apparent desire to make this case go away now did it did a lawyer write that or or did your client similarly on page thirty two you criticize the district court  having quote ignored the facts before the lies and been told and submitted as truth in the rule eleven motion those are serious accusations against a district court what evidence do you have that the district court acted with improper problems were frustrated at the district court because these rulings came down and i'm not asking about the frustration level i'm asking about the allegations of improper conduct any evidence i think that other other than the fact that orders were issued and motions were denied and reasons and sanctions were awarded and reasons weren't stated as far as that's the you know the if a tradition so the basis for those statements is that the court was doing its job and i think i think the basis is the court wasn't doing its job because it wasn't succeed on a sim fifty three b b claim a party has to demonstrate specific prejudice resulting therefrom i don't see anything in the civil and i don't see anything where they're supporting allegations that that your client was specifically prejudiced by not having a free record and while i'm throwing questions that if your client wanted a court reporter why didn't your client get a court recor let me try and address those questions i don't believe are aware of any case law that supports that argument in the civil context we did we could certainly make another effort trying to find it and again as mentioned before opponents were just kind of caught by surprise that these hearings were being held in there and the court reporter there was a court reporter and then all of a sudden the court said well let's go off the record and then that was the end of the court reporter and  for example the delay in filing the the motion for sanctions what caused a large part of that was that when when the magistr ruling came down the distant no district judge was assigned to the case and then when the district judge was assigned we were instructed that the ruhleben motion was to be resolved first and that no other motions were to be filed but unfortunately that was an oral directive given by the court and so there's no record of that so that's just an example of how we were harmed by the lack of a court reporter in your honor if i could i'd say i don't have too much more time i'd like to make one you're always able to make a record court reporter or not but if i could i'd like to just make one  i think that it's important to point out this problem and the reason it was written is that regional circuit law covers these issues and so the ninth circuit has actually declined to adopt any rule that a failure to timely did you argue waiver to the district court we didn't argue we were to the district court your honor but this didn't you wave waiver we may have your honor but even if we did none of this appeal as to make our products and time limits your honor but in the red brief we did not sort of go through the time in this argument in a way that i'd like to today and i'm here to assist the court with that so i'd like to ask you a couple of questions it was suggested that that rule thirty seven rule despite the fact that they were granted important tonight in that the brief on page nine talks about how the wrong will is being applied here and the wrong rules being applied for many different reasons or talks about r thirty seven easy being the issue being the rule that should apply and indeed the motion for sanctions itself in the three seventy s just make sure i'm not mistaken is not the same rules thirty seven eighty five c correct correct your honor ok so my only question to you was did you have any place in the brief to make the argument that the appropriate rule to apply is thirty seven eighty five c and you claimed yes you did you don't like when you do a section where you say straight answer to my question to you at any place in this brief raise the argument that serving thirty seven and a five c is the appropriate rule that should have been applied in this case your honor i  did give you that answer which is no that rule is not cited in this brief cited the rule is not in there and but however the facts of the predicate for that rule is granted and part in case we're not preserving arguments for appeal where we're briefing our position here and i'm here to help clarify for the court to try to make a new argument for me my brief answer is i don't see that argument anywhere in your brief and while a jurisdictional and a party is failure to timely notice of appeal may not be waived this is this court lacks jurisdiction to hear any of the issues relative to vernon warwick and make a products and those are issues items number three through seven on the notice of appeal they're trying to bootstrap the timeliness of this entire appeal on the final order that was entered in december of two thousand and sixteen however that was a motion filed under rule sixty nine a federal rules of civil procedure sixty nine a which is not one of the rules under appellate rule for a for a that extends the time for filing an appeal it's not a rule fifty motion it's not a rule fifty two b motion fifty four fifty nine or sixty motion so what we're looking for is the date of the final judgment and august ninth is the critical date because on that date we had make products being discharged in bankruptcy as of october seventh two thousand and fourteen in case number three twelve bankruptcy six five seven two in the middle seventh twenty sixteen by the district court judge there was a final adjudication as to defendant's air sea land production signature video ink in blue sky aerials on or about may twenty fifth twenty sixteen when a consent judgment was entered as to all those defendants and the to add this new party spectrum effects new orleans to nola and that doesn't extend the time for appeal so this appeal is actually governed by rule for a one day and we look thirty days past august ninth twenty sixteen there was no appeal filed has to make a products and are known work out as of that date there are over one hundred thirty four days late in filing their notice of appeal in january twenty seventh and this  sanction if you were to prevail on sanctions you would be calculating the amount of time you spent on all this even though you're here now saying that's offering up all the time we spent on this case all the time you spent on the case that's  sanctions would deal with the cost that you put in to this appeal it of course doesn't cover the costs we put into this appeal which under your argument appears to have been unnecessary yes absolutely your honor and time in making arguments and that goes for both sides so we spend a lot of time going through the briefs this is a supposed to be a half hour yes run and then you both come here either disavowing everything except that are saying it's unnecessary or saying you're not when did you figure out that there wasn't jurisdiction in your view this case in preparation for or argument when i would say thursday last week thursday last week or so on friday did you contemplate making the court aware of this determination by filing we get stuff all the time even on the morning of party i've had our courts office run something up to my chambers saying that attorneys just figure this out judge and they want to put it in front of you before you get out there and i'm always appreciated when they do that because as you can imagine i don't like having things from on me an oral argument only things that have to do with which which things were given notice of appeal i have none of those documents in front of me you're just you don't and usually don't because when you bring your own birth so you're spouting off a bunch of details that you became aware of four days ago i mean were you isolated on an island without the ability to inform the court why would you choose not to inform the court that you believed last thursday we had no jurisdiction over this case your honor i didn't think that there was a procedural mechanism to submit for further briefing on this case i thought that the case was briefed that the parties were locked into the breeze that they had submitted well obviously you not locked in because you're making an entirely different argument you don't think you were locked and they can't possibly be locked in because they've got a right to respond even it's for two minutes of rebuttal again your honor i can only respond to your new argument about lacking jurisdiction which is based on dates particular notice of appeal information was filed none of which we have in front of him that i couldn't blame them for not having in front of it because until you stood there and said it they're not on notice of it so how can they meaning fully respond today to this argument you're making about jurisdiction you possessed for four hearings go ahead and your honor it actually was incumbent upon the appellant's to determine whether or not the appeal was filed timely and so that would actually be a part of the for volley of this appeal that they should have done this assessment of i appreciate that your honor but we would still say that we should prevail on the merits of this number one because the court lacks restriction and also because i think you have a good argument there also also because all of the grounds of appeal if we were to get to the substance of it lack merit one of the orders to show cause order which is item five on the notice of appeal doesn't even apply to these parties it was a show cause order that was i especially since i find this line anything that's important i just secondary keeps again and again we have the opponents i see my time is almost out i apologize on behalf of for your honour's we would request a supplemental briefing on the new issue that's been raised by pelley and secondly from from my five minutes remaining