you should know that we've read your papers and we know your argument but you can take your five minutes and try and tell us why you're not in small claims court my greatest difficulty i have only five minutes and i have thirteen complaints so i have to keep the most important ones that that will address and nd difficulty is that the lower court didn't address all my complaints that res just four and the rest be dismissed without consideration so i don't know how to rebut an argument that was never made but i will rebut the four and i will address the other ones that why i think they should be back on the calendar when i looked at my complaint i found one supreme court decision that i said this is my case i don't need to bring any other references this opinion has everything that is in my case to the t i'm talking about gore versus w there are many similarities in both cases they started with and not about the fact just as a car dealer in both cases plaintiffs claim some damn damage and they want punitive damages and in both cases the court ability factors that should be considered and noted that in worst case they were not present but in his wisdom he realized that there could be different doctors and slightly different variations on those circumstances so three elements saying that either of those two either intentional affirmative misconduct or targeting financial involvement would warrant a penalty and i would like to go through each one of them to show how it is relevant to inviting public i know don't they i bought a donated vehicle and maybe you know from elaine this concept but in another concept you would recognize the situation you donate to the salvation army you do not you accidentally been a to something that you didn't mean to donate can i buy back from the i'm sorry but otherwise it is understood that you donate to charity and people financially vulnerable will buy your donation for a symbolic price here are what they did after that was outrageous misconduct because when they asked for a refund i felt that there is no press for the refund they didn't send me papers to fill it out they didn't say there was nothing secondly when i asked for a nd refund because the exceeded time so there were two in two separate instances and again there was no procedure other than saying go away and i thought that this is a situation where i should ask a jury to decide what punitive damages should be but if you compare what dr gore was asking here that a mere six hundred dollars damage on interview before i ran to the crimes that i can not rent the car anymore it's too expensive i have to buy something so when my all purchase money was gone not me i lost that employment opportunity i was precluded from going on no future opportunities to go for an interview these are donated cars is not actually accurate they can be from many different didn't work right and why did you give no refund because the car is bought as it is it's an online auction the cars are described as what they are they're not donated cars necessarily i'm just working not always like you buy a car that's not working there are many reasons one hundred would be the main reason why this case doesn't belong here the only reason that this appeal is here is whether or not this case has subject matter jurisdiction and just stand to reason why the case is here but i want to know why he didn't get a refund  are described on their inventory as vehicles that are damaged in some way the donated vehicle is not necessarily a large portion of the the sales most of the sales are when kept cars are people can buy cars online for many reasons they could be buying a car for one specific part and may not be the part that makes the car run there or there are many different reasons the customers who come in to buy the cars are given the opportunity to inspect the cars and calm and drive them or to have somebody inspect them and appraise the vehicle and if they choose not to do that they're going based on it's being sold as it is putting that  nothing in what mr crow glove has presented provides us with subject matter jurisdiction of his damages being more than seventy five thousand dollars represent call part right not the other i only represent co part i do not represent the  do you know that small claims court where do you live live in new york or connecticut i live in new york and small claims court cannot award damaged by my own exceeds what mr gore experienced so i thought given great similarity i should be entitled to a similar relief that he was seeking do you understand what your adversary was saying  about the terms of the sale he was saying that he he was saying and i have no idea what the truth is because we don't have the merits of this case before but he was saying that the karma saw as it was which means of the air which means that there is no representation whatsoever that the car works that you might be buying the car to get its headlights or its tail lights to use them on a different car that is simply that the terms of the about selling a car for it's junk value i'm glad you said that because that's what i was addressing in my complaint to the court but not here they say part that you have to as a consumer be prudent and inspect the car before you take it if there is an additional damage discovered you can ask for a refund by additional damage here's the deal you go and you inspect the car several days before the auction then the close access to the car you be on that you come to pick it up something can happen in the course of those seven days when you're not allowed access to the car at three can full on that somebody can come steal a part because people roam around they can just thank something you have to see i said i have my inspection she before him i'm not saying that to offer you the opportunity to convince me i'm just saying that before you decide whether to go to another court you should be aware that your adversary is going to say co part is going to say we sold the car as it is without any representation that it works or that it's of any value as long as you're aware of that yes and then at the same time have member protection plates saying we will reimburse you that's a promise and they say apart from that they say if we don't deliver that item to you within forty five days we will also reinvest you and on both of those instances they backed away from that promise have to end here