the next matter on our countdown there are really two matters being heard in tandem the first one is frederick astro versus united states and the other one is thank you for hearing me because this is the first time despite my reputation being be smirched that any judge had the courtesy to stand before me and hear what i have to say or ask me questions about why i did what i did i want to note that the first thing here is the frivolous standard i mean we're supposed to be assessing not whether or not what i said happened but whether or not what i did the motion that i made seeking sanctions was frivolous whether or not there were no reasonable grounds or not a scintilla of evidence to make the argument that this particular witness who happened to be the dean of a law school lied under oath twice which quite frankly i still to this day absolutely think he did indelible stain on his client because the jury would quote impute meant to his bad acts teeling so at least viewing and his lawyer also thought the same thing that i thought and that we all thought would be obvious to a jury and quite frankly i think that anyone who reads mr i've been oppenheimer's papers i would be left with the distinct and unequivocal impression that this man did lie under oath twice and i think that his lawyer knew that he lied under oath twice and i think that's why his lawyer answered the answer about this question the way he did and i think it's the reason why he answered the at the rug atory by saying it was irrelevant which was it was not a relevant now the district court in indorsing in finding along with the magistrate said quote counsel's actions and unduly contentious behavior and then he goes on to say are worthy of verbal sanctions i want to point out that it appears to me that the district judge didn't read all the papers because i was never even so much as accused of unduly contentious behavior and yet i was virtually sanctioned for unduly contentious behavior the defendants never accused me of it the magistrates report and recommendation didn't say that i did it and i'm going to read from the docket docket ninety dash one this is from opposing counsel to me in an e mail which is part of the docket here counselors it has been clear to me for some time that you cannot always control your client but i've never questioned your professional integrity because of this i understand as lawyers we can all we can do is counsel but clients sometimes do not heed our vice the tone of this litigation amongst counsel has thus far been courteous and i would like to keep it that way however if you file a frivolous rule eleven sanctions motion that will change so here's opposing counsel saying that i wasn't being contentious now after that e mail the only thing that happened is we filed our motion he said it was frivolous the magistrate found that it was frivolous it wasn't for evillest the testified under oath that what he said was a totally different version of events and even when presented there were contemporaneous notes also showing what the vote was and even when he was presented with all that information his response was not maybe i misremembered he didn't say that he said no i very clearly remember that meeting and there was no vote on malkin's promotion now the magistrate found that none of this was material anyway the magistrate said quote the court can fathom no reason to fix it fixate on the top mattoo his recollection of this meeting other than term harassment to well first of all the reason to fix it is because it's relevant opposing counsel was fixated on it we did the math seventeen percent of plaintiffs deposition related to this issue plus opposing counsel and all of the witnesses about it so obviously opposing counsel was fixated on it and thought it was important plus the implication was that if there was no vote there was no property interest which was which is central to the case and judge a carrier in the motion to dismiss which was completely ignored both on the sanctions motion and my former client summary judgment motion his decision on the motion to dismiss said quote the underlying policies and written common law a political pull to faculty appointment would be relevant in the matter while what whether or not the policies existed and whether or not they were followed included whether or not there was a vote and what the result of that vote was so for the court to say it could not fathom any idea as to how this could be relevant it's mind blowing it just goes to show the blatant ever in these decisions by these judges as the vote would selfless irrelevant well i think that's what that's that's what the judge that's what they thought i don't i think at a minimum judge akari also said we're entitled to seek punit damages against me too and judge a car is said in seeking punitive damages whether or not matou or the extents matua would go to to avoid having to stay on campus is relevant to punitive damages he to and had the right not to renew the contract no matter what the faculty thought or whatever was at the meeting then what the what he said on the stand was irrelevant well it wouldn't  be relevant to his veracity and it wouldn't be relevant to punitive damages i mean the whole case would be dismissed if that's true so i guess under that rubric it is irrelevant but i didn't know at that time that the case was going to get dismissed on that basis in fact the dismissal completely disagreed disagrees and ignores the motion to dismiss a standard that was held and if that was in fact true we didn't have to do any discovery in the case but the bottom line is at the a bsolute barest minimum of factors it was relevant background information which is why it was included in the second sentence a judge a carries decision when he was describing the background facts of the case on the motion to dismiss there's no way you would try this case without that coming up and if a jury felt that matua lied which i think on equivocally that they would read the oppenheimer who filed on behalf of viewing the motion to sever also felt that they would and that is bad acts would stain his client if the jury felt that to align about that issue that would be a really big focus of the trial and it could affect whether or not they believe that anything else that mature said but if this was decided by the sunni rules then whatever anyone said was not relevant well if it was decided the way that the judge ultimately decided the case that nothing's relevant because the rules the rule we shouldn't even have discovery don't through conclusion i i i don't judg disagreed i mean i'm not here prepared to argue that particular point i'm sure mr malkin will but i will say that if you read the motion to dismiss if what your honor saying is true and if what the district courts ultimate finding is true on the merits of the most matter which is beyond the sanctions motion then we didn't have to have any discovery in the motion to dismiss should have been granted but at the time i was dealing with this and i still don't think that's true but that's for mr malcolm to argue but at the time i was dealing with this the only decision on the case indicated that that was not true judge a car is decision set this for discovery and talked about the issues for us to explore in discovery and they included some of these things and that's why defense counsel was focused on and in discovery as much as we were which is a statistical fact and the bottom line is again i'm not arguing it merits all i'm saying is i carefully considered if you read my emails which are in here i wrote nice e mails to imposing counsel i gave him case law i gave him support i said what i had to say as nicely as possible i wasn't contentious but i did hold an honest and firm conviction which i still hold that is client life and that he should have done something about it and he did it was it for am i wrong about that maybe i am but was it frivolous for me to put that before the court it wasn't a frivolous act it wasn't something that i should be sanctioned for or have your argument used exceeded your time and the other side is on submission