good morning your honour's and thank you very very much this is a twelve year litigation and the second time i'm before this court as a pro se litigant the first time i am a u s patent t and my patents are in use all over the state of new york in the city of new york they are in the airports the tablets that you see in the airports all are my patents they can be used for security and security in school systems and they are content based mobile ticketing operations with apparatus i am a graduate of the u c l a school of law and the harvard school of public health i have a master's in molecular biology and i am a contributor to women's breast cancer i am responsible for getting the m patents for women for breast cancer and i do a great deal of pro bono work between law and medicine and i'm a rhodes scholarship nominee in legal medical education  i am not a practicing lawyer and i have never been a practicing lawyer when i went to u c l a law school i was michael jackson's concert producer and a producer for the three tenors so the practice of law in the state of california is markedly different than it is in new york and i actually also have an  disability i retired from the practice of law in california when i started my own software company which was in one thousand nine hundred ninety seven in any respect this is a very interesting case and the i will tell you that i went to a law firm just very briefly to protect my patents they hired me from one year to do business development for them in entertainment technology and i ended up being deprived of all my clients my patents my patent files and my patents were actually inserted into a patent application of another client and then i also lost my position in any regard and the second circuit in the first in the first appeal that i won pro se ordered discovery on the claims of breach of fiduciary duty and patent malpractise before the united states patent office and also were particularly interested on page seven of its water that the cowen liebowitz in latin and law firm admitted to a conflict of interest and filed the request to withdraw form that was never granted by the patent office and the court including i originally sued open the lawsuit i had an attorney and the attorney the other clients were clear channel live nation and instant live concerts which were some of the clients that were using my trade secrets at the time that i show up at the time i was shortly after i was terminated by the cowen firm after three months in any respect the us or of the court on the first round was that the statute of limitations expired on my misappropriation of trade secrets claim and that live nation and clear channel my attorney did not file a notice of appeal however the subsidiary that they formed based on the based on my materials that the law firm which was instant live concerts was still a viable defendant at the time the case was remanded per foot no one of the order of the court and so what what happened was is that the second circuit ordered discovery and by the way the the claims for fiduciary duty and malpractise are based on the cowen firm's defiance of the rules of practice before the patent office the state law does not apply to their to their services on my of prosecution of my patents in any regard in the i just asked yes yes your honor and we're considering it carefully this the earlier panel sent back a claim concluded that you had stated a claim plausibly alleged that the law firm had used information given to them by you as part of a confidential attorney client relationship to their own advantage and that claim went back to the district court and the district court has now determined that that case that claim is outside the statute of limitations how did the district court make a mistake question we have to answer ok the first question is is that the state the statute the statute of limitations you're asking me has the court applied the state statute of limitations instead of the statute of limitations for the services under the patent rules ok so attorney moves to withdraw for a conflict of interest is are under thirty seven c f r eleven point one one one six ten point forty one point three six  law firm must return your patent files they must withdraw from all the applications they file for you this firm did not do that they were not granted withdrawal from by the patent office the lawyers who who filed the patent applications did not all join in the withdrawal notice which is also required and therefore they move to to withdraw as to only one of the applications they filed the other one expired and they never of they never can continued work on the application from which they did not pick withdraw and they were never withdrawn from the earlier application in addition to which the previous court judge jones found then on the misappropriation claim the latest date that my material could have been misappropriated incident live concerts was may fifth of two thousand and three which was the day that the instant live concerts was announced in the new york times magazine this court found that the latest state that that that from which they were calculating the statute of limitations was july second of two thousand and two they did not file a lot of the case the court also found that the the firm was only my lawyers for one month when the previous court based on the calends own papers said they were my attorneys since january two thousand and two  two and they tried to unilaterally say they were no longer my attorneys on or gets june tenth of two thousand and two after five weeks this is just ridiculous the red light has gone on we have your briefing ok let's take take and i just say one more thing your honor the stay that we might have one more minute one more minute ok the attorneys for the cowen firm are on the disciplinary committee and have been tampering with my bar files ex parte and got court by the appellate division since this case was remanded to this court there is no jurisdiction over me by the first department the disciplinary committee they my the callon firm went in there this has been a smokescreen by magistrate pittman to deny me all the discovery that this court ordered i got no discovery at all i got no discovery of my federally mandated patent files i got no amended complaint in nor including because much during the stay of appeal my patents issued during that time and therefore i had a right to refile my rule sixty b motion against instant live concerts that was all right he still a defendant for patent infringement under paragraph eighteen of the third amended complain and i had a right to move for breach of fiduciary duty against legend films that stole my patents ok i was i was denied all those rights and i never even got a hearing on the merits thank you and advisement we understand your arguments with regard to the statue limitations thanks for coming in today thank you so much for your consideration and for this long thank you so much