our final case this morning for oral argument is sas more versus muscles and others me mr i saw that you did not request time to argue but in fact since m to be presenting would you like to have a few minutes yes please yes that was a very tardy motion and you made an appearance earlier and received a prior extension of time and failed to file a brief that was why that motion was denied but since you were here i'm off i'm yes it was denied and so since you are here however if you would like to take a couple of minutes to respond to mr says more that would be acceptable appellant first the rico enterprise element any reasonable fact finder looking at the evidence which is in the appendix would find that there was an association in fact enterprise for the one nine hundred sixty to see cla controlled ronald henry's real estate business through a long series of crimes the district court didn't even consider the one nine hundred sixty to be claim this just says we could could you address the question of rico injury i'm having difficulty understanding how your the rent the can pay for two months and then i think withdrew your rent for the june and litigation expenses related to your even action the second lawsuit why those are injuries are sure your honor so there are five different predicate acts including the things which you mentioned which injured the point it's in terms of the rent the reason that th injury that you allege you suffered the defense came pounding on our bedroom doors late at night demanding illegal rent that's one form of injury they misrepresented thing that was extortion correct right because that put you in fear yes and did you you had an obligation to pay rent however didn't you that he had a general obligation to pay for living circumstances though in this circumstance because the housing had been turned into a rooming house and that was had not been registered you objected or we did not have an obligation to pay rent under state law because the law says that the rent could not legally be collected and there's other case law where which i've cited where illegal rant  is an injury for rico purposes and the rent that you paid more as the first two months rent is that right it was and there were other is estimated at least what happened when the rent was paid into escrow did that ever get turned over to the landlord or that come back to you or that go to somebody else what happened to that was set aside and then after the state has in judge ordered us don't pay any rent we follow that order as well as all the other orders and so the money paid to the anybody on the other side of the v in this case or the first month's rent is that right some of the other plaintiffs may have paid more but  friend there was a security deposit and there were so she added credit fees all of which were because of the extortion and also the fraud of misrepresenting the ownership ok and the litigation expenses are the litigation expenses from the vacate proceedings because the earlier litigation expenses you were reimbursed for is that correct now that's wrong it was for the eviction proceedings which turned out to have been brought by the defendant confusing i think the appellate court got it exactly right that a trust of this sort any action has to be brought in the name of the trustees right so that's why you won  that suit at least the as of that moment and were enabled to stay in the apartment that you maintain it is illegal for you to reside in while it was illegal to sleep in that that's what the city said so i that point we already were not sleeping there but we were continuing to use it now this is all in the past now because i'm not living there anymore i'm having a little trouble understanding why a technical victory in a proceeding where your whole point is that this was illegally rented in the first place and then when they say well in that case leave you resisted that ok and you won on the court decided that the trust in any trust of this kind the trustees have to sue in their own name right it was a finding that there is no trust and no one can bring the suit is that they should bring in their own name wanted because it sounds like what you wanted was to stay in this illegally converted place without paying rent now don't want that what we wanted was to stop what they were doing and i still would hope that the court would write an opinion correcting the district court about the trust law issue because what the district court did would say ok the trust name isn't authorized in court but can still be illegitimate owner and that creates the possibility that trust name is a new kind of corporate entity and what the defendants did here is they conceal their identity behind the fake trust name then they were outside the law they could do whatever they wanted extortion defrauding the government out of tens of thousands of dollars of taxes building violations more tens of thousands of dollars penalties there's just a trust name it doesn't identify the trustees the  i felt cheated and afraid and other tenants did too and we wanted to do something to put an end to it which is why we stay there in adverse conditions and and to litigation about it because it wasn't just a technical violation there's a fake trust in a fraud going on here i believe that those cases brought in the trust name fraudulent lee as well as demands for fraudulent huge amounts of rents that were in the cases do justify that those cases were fraud and extortion and that we were injured by those eviction cases as well as by paying rent to the wrong people and having the rent be illegal rent taken by extortion i think what we've been after all along is time justice and to stop this from happening to other people and i think that all of the elements of  evidence or did you similarly evidence to the district court that it is happening to other people at a location other than it was two eighty seven franklin we did submit evidence of other similar trysts there were some members of the enterprise that had  sylvia francis land trust and there was a leon jenkins trust and there's been another appellate decision which cites the one in my favor afterwards of another trust where were the pelleas were brought into this case just by happenstance if i may elaborate a little bit on the underlying facts of the house in question was in foreclosure the bank had solicited from civil brokers to conduct a  kings county realty by mr garcia and mr kalvin accept that offer and try to conduct said b p zero on behalf of the bank so they had no relation with  the trust or whoever else was managing the property or any of the tenants let me assume for the moment that all that is absolutely true are your clients among those who defaulted in the district court or did they know they put in an appearance that's correct these arguments yes ron and we posed the summary judge motion made by mr says more so there is regardless of the failure to file a brief in this court there is a record in the district court to which we could turn to look for what is the involvement of your particular clients as of course your honor that assertion is of course our main defense that we were just  drawn into this case we were being extorted by virtue of this lawsuit that the plaintiffs mainly mr says more as a core pointed out he claims the plaintiffs even though he's a pro se defendant not representing anyone else there was an association you're not here on behalf of mr goldberg and mr teitelbaum that's correct only mr garcia mr caffyn kings county real to your position is that those individuals alleged happened independently from my clients involved in the property again their only involvement was coming to conduct a broker's price opinion on behalf of the bank that was  again we apologize for not briefing this but essentially the arguments made by mr says more he's seeking one to claim that the lower court judges were biased his time to do so  moore you have one minute thank you honor i i would dispute what the garcia defense just said about the record i think the record is clear i would have briefed it here if they briefed it but in the summary judgment record personally judgement with a long list of evidence about how the garcia defendants were involved in a lot of ways give us the high point were they not engaged by the bank to provide an appraisal garcia showed up with tools for breaking into the house i met him there he was there to intimidate me he was there to intimidate the tenants to move out of the house there's a long series of phone calls around that and also around the defendant's attempts to lowball the broker price opinion well below market value in order to defraud the bank so garcia was sent to do the broker price opinions but he was also connected with the defendants by other personal ties and they submitted fraudulent short sale application supported by garcia's lowball artificially low broker price union so the point is he was directly involved and that have to do with any of the injuries to you is when i'm trying to figure out if there was some inappropriate low price or low valuation how does that affect you as opposed to the bank or well the bank primarily the claims against mr real issues clients are under one thousand nine hundred sixty two d the conspiracy claims so they weren't the ones ok yeah just one last closing remark i hope the court will do something to fix the district court's mistake about the trust law because that can have facts on a lot of other cases and it's very confusing