fraud on the court we under california law under california law there are two procedural mechanisms for doing that one is we can make a motion in the original action that he actually which pardon california law answers your question under california law you have just described what is called intrinsic fraud intrinsic fraud does not give rise to a separate cause of action  a trial is a truth finding proceeding if if a jury believes the wrong person there is no remedy for that under california law either specifically no cause of action against a witness who who lied for perjury it's been ruled that you cannot have such cause of action and you cannot seem to overturn a judge like you know separate action more in the kind of motion that i indicated could also be  of paper and a piece of paper from a witness disclosed at the last moment the judge allowed us to reopen discovery to find his address so we could take his deposition and the address was not provide well and if we go along with you then any time a summary judgment application is based on an affidavit which is later found out to be perjurious no or fraudulent no not any time under california law it's clear that we could bring this action and say quite likely it's a little virginia want to bring in federal court i think they have a right to do that and it's clear in the california law you go back to the when it came time to consider following this lawsuit we considered two possibilities one has jurisdiction which was clear and los angeles county because it's the residence of the defendant and it's where the judgment was entered it's her court or because of the caption and identical wants you to the one that's in front of us right now literally you could hold it up to the light and page by page including this forensic fraud claim or alleged that was filed but never served  in april dismissed in june for reasons i don't know but in any event it is there it is part of and dismissed without prejudice i might add that the court record will show man that courts and secondly or part of that is it extreme sickly inexpensively intertwined with the issues that were resolved there if the answer is yes and we believe it is then judge cooper that issue was already litigated this extensive fraud or whatever we want to call it claiming in the state courts specifically things number two and i'd like to point out that the operative complaining case number two amended complaint and although it may not be part of the record the original complaint in case number two didn't mention this fraud because that was filed case number two was file they're there darned if they do and they're darned if they don't but the but there's no doubt i mean it it took to our position is that he has i believe i just cooper put in her reach the jurors obviously the federal courts no you have to reach the jurisdictional question first well if this is a collaborative this attack on a on a state court judgment forbidden to fact i don't think that this is inconsistent with any of the cases certainly not the noel case of though in that case i guess it was only the the seven course of action for fraud which was sent provides a summary judgment won't be can't beat and i for want of cross examination of the witness this was brought up in that case in case number one it was really brought up in case number two  or how about which is that attacking the summary judgment motion that we brought in upon which the judgments were based if send their papers that the green that the court was proud was correct in granting summary judgment yet they're trying to end that's the way that they're trying to get around river and noel in those cases but again it's a semantic issue and it's also one hundred eighty degrees opposite from what those what what they argued in the state court where they said you shouldn't grant these motions disingenuous and in our opinion and imagine what will happen if it goes back to to the trial level what evidence is going to be taken they'll have to prove that there's no way we could have won the case but for that declaration the possibilities are endless but the fact remains that the federal court will be asked to inquire into what went into the summary judgment motion and why this mean for granted and that's just not allowed should also be pointed out that under the  but for the fact that diversity was created in a by by the flames moving out of california after case number one we wouldn't be here today so i think to that extent you know the case and talk about whether or not the federal action is a general constitutional challenge well there's nothing constitutional about this case and it's purely based on hundred versity that was conveniently brainer i don't have anything for that thank you so much declaration told us they didn't know where he was and because the defendant party who worked part time and sometimes told us under penalty of perjury in response to an interlocutory thank didn't know where he was five year old child their family is in virginia and they were left without any means of support and then moved back to virginia where they they don't know about california for his job to begin with and i know that's not in the record he did i just think it was unfair t right straight through the door it's very hard to get a healthy l