other matter how could that possibly not be an offset against the amount you are claiming here especially when you claim that amount do x parker well i didn't claim it to be do ex parte claimed to be doing a proceeding where the defendant was on notice in the fall that it could not be an offset if it was not a crew of it to be with respect to the same issues on which the judgment was entered so court and the plaintiffs were plaintiffs councilmen and it was not it was a motion to vacate a judgment well now you say the treaty is a dispute between you and the court i mean clearly there's nobody was expecting and there's really not a vehicle for people to say and now and now i am disputing with you the court direct i mean your emotions that go back and forth but in this instance the court seemed to be that there had been no recovery here when in fact there had been some recovery here and you would not have received that the default judgment the troubling and all the interest associated with it had you been as an officer of the court forthcoming as was incumbent on you to be that's what i understand their reasoning to be you can correct me if i'm wrong and what i want to know is since you attack that by saying hey they were wrong as a matter of walk because under your  case law third circuit under herring there has to be perjury that's what you saying your brief i'm trying to figure out where you found that in herring what is it in hearing that tells you there has to be perjury in order herring expressly so stated when it said perjury is required to be sure but not sufficient and then also said that with respect to the perjury that must be shown in must be shown that the statements splendid about why this happened but be it do it in the context of this the judgment you had was fifteen point six million dollars against mr pressman correct if something is supposed to come off of that you haven't told the court that there's an offset that has to come off of that it's the amount that was in the summit with the other parties so when were you ever going to well not to support not to a court not to a court that's been well explained and i think very very cogently explain and if if you were to overcome by the confidentiality section in the settlement agreement which actually talk only as to amounts and not to the fact of settlement you could have put down in the papers of course there has been a settlement and a certain amount recovered which i'm not at liberty to discuss and then the court could have gotten in touch with judge cattle and that could have been resolved but there was no mention at all that any such settlement had occurred well your honor respectfully i think you hundred ninety eight and then there was a waiter modification of the water but it prohibited this closure but allowed this closure upon inquiry of a regulatory by now i've had many confidentiality agreements in my life many of them have similar terms and i don't believe that it is honorable to go to a regulatory body with an with an agreement of that type let alone a court order of that type and say that the regulatory body wink wink regulator why don't you ask me a question and i'll tell you the answer and now i firmly believe and judge  never tell anybody that there might be an offset it's up to them to come out and say oh by the way i knew that there was the settlement i knew that we need to find out what it is and whatever the fifteen point six is you've got to suppress it that is what you're saying you the amount of any possible set off now under under mcdermott under the supreme court rule set off this result of proportionate fault and there is no evidence at all but the concern is that you didn't tell other judges struck wroth ramos mcnulty necessarily what's going on you didn't you didn't tell judge mcnulty what the disinclination of judge solace was to because i wanted to give him the chance to do what your honor suggested many experienced judges when they hear something like that and michael the other judge if they were interested in what happened might have asked me what happened but that's not what happened i had worked him to that i a ed in front of the clerk and said sure i want the case as related to the clerk said no it's not pending i said i want to speak to your supervisor because i'm not accepting the opinion of the clerk at the desk and i got the supervisor and because we're wondering how home thoughtful judges looking into the full record could come to the conclusion that it looked to them like there was intentional deception so since your time has already run i want to make sure i have the chance they asked this question you said that herring requires i find your perjury it does talk about perjury but i'm still looking in the case for someplace where it says  that perjury is an element it doesn't say about it goes way off actually actually your honor and i cited in my in my briefs and also it's clear in the language well it says perjury is required but not sufficient and let me will give a damn he says yeah give me give me the language because what when i read it what i see it says is we agree that perjury by a witness is not enough to constitute fraud upon the subject to a literal truthful interpretation yet that this is a clue as this is not a perjury case i don't see them saying anywhere that you perjured yourself well here them saying that you committed an intentional say an intentional fraud which can occur without perjury when you agree and intentional fraud could occur with that perjury yes i agree ok but let me let me say this your honor that is not true that a four that on the court can be found without perjury the jury i'm reading here and i got it from you when you say that's what it says it doesn't say that there has to be perjury in order for there to be a fraud on the quirk it's talking about in a perjury case the perjury alone may not be sufficient but perjury is a false statement under oath an officer of the court makes all kinds of statements to the court all kinds of representations which are not under oath if it were in fact the case that there had to be perjury in order for the you would narrow the possibility of finding fraud on the court to an extraordinarily good a number of cases the point is that you have to be able to trust officers of the court when they're speaking to you under oath or not because they're officers of the word so there doesn't have to be perjury in order for there to be fraud on the court does there mr pawle the flag i believe that if you were led first of all i made no statements to the court was that were not under oath stick with me on the law under the law i believe that nondisclosure which is directed at the court itself and in fact the cvs the court that's correct your honor when to end them because of long precedent by this circuit including president by that in cases that members of the panel sat upon if there is a newly discovered evidence for example that was not disclosed to the court which is what we're really talking about although the evidence was known to you about the settlement and you oh of course i know i is not a sanction motion this is a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to whether the plaintiffs can keep their judgment now that that is different than if it were a sanction motion and  treated it not as a motion for relief from a judgment and the requirements for example in supreme court in beggarly and requirements that have been restated by nonce presidential decisions in this court as thought to be a relevant to actual collection ever which i was prohibited by a court order from this closing be existence of and of course i would have done it judge to arden any it makes no sense for me not to do so i never thought it matters read the brief let me just because if you read life don't worry what about this case needs to be under seal the amount of the settlement what else needs hinders your honor i think that so i don't know if anything other than the amount of the settlement needs to be under seal but the like the issue here and if i may just raise one point about the scope of review i didn't take the position as to whether it's  janie in a non presidential opinion takes the position that it is the nova review here what happens your honor is there was a motion for relief from a default judgment which was granted without a showing of any showing or that he was not aware of the evidence of the time and there are substantial evidence in the record that there was and then the court just went on affidavits to render its decision without any fact finding but what you've got here in me and you know you know as unequivocally constitute under these circumstances and intentional fraud on the court you then appeal to district court and district court says yeah there's a lot there but judge ramos did things here that i i'm not going to try ramos did whether i agree or disagree with it now you decide to appeal which i did still don't quite understand why you would not just let this dog lie but you've appealed and now the issue was front and center mcnulty was just being kind or we should be visited and that's where we are well your honor i don't believe judgment no if he was being just kind with respect to the sanction motion and that motion is not going to repeal but it but it could six million dollars judgment were you going to collect that were you going to subtract at that point in time he allows this of the court under oath and i and i believe and i always believed that i would never seek to collect any more than the merit of the judgment minus the set off that's a way of dealing with the equities on my own and i never was going to try to collect that amount there is not a single shred of evidence that i ever had the belief for a moment to collect anywhere near that amount when you say it was not it was shred of evidence that i was going to collect the amount of course the natural come back to that is the shred of evidence as he made representations to the court and in fact the pain of default judgment troubled and i got interest on it and that reflects an intent no it does not your honor because what does it mean to go to court and make representations to the court that your honor i was entitle to a true treble damage judgement if there was any set off never thought i would i'm representing clients my clients wanted to know why we didn't pursue in judgment against precedent and you can see from the timeline in the record it wasn't something that i considered an extremely high priority were made any effort to if i didn't believe that it was meaningful a five million dollars gentlemen a ten million dollars judgment would have been worth just as much to my clients as a fifteen it isn't the only thing that the judge can infer based on your conduct not what you're telling us you believe is that you were seeking a fifteen point six million dollars judgment with no set off told to the court at that time and the judge found that the only disclosure a ever made to him was technically true and so when i just sat explicitly that breast milk has not made any payment now i think this gets to the core of the case how did we get to that being the heart of this case because the heart of this case at this juncture it seems he is not with mr preston it is a good person or a bad person he's a convicted felon and not a person who generous a whole lot of sympathy but the question that we're wrestling with this are you rightly the subject of one of the most serious things that can be directed away or that is intentionally misleading record and  when you went to court on the next party basis thank god a default judgment which did mention that there was a substantial sum of money that had already gone into your client's pockets associated with these very material to the decision to be made by the court and it was not material because in my belief is not material as a matter of law because that subject of the set off dime of this amount i did not file a sworn statement to that my adversary said that in their brief that is a false statement judge mcnulty pointed out that i have not made that statement that's just on trail the only was fifteen point six million dollars you know would you have gone after mr breslin for fifteen point six million dollars i would not have i would have told my clients i should know pretty so it's less than that but it's still a substantial amount that's correct and i have and i and i what and absolute why if i would not attempt to collect a penny why on earth would i have not given the court a heads up and  disclosed to the court he exists and said the settlement if i was not under court order not to do so and obligated by the honor as an attorney not to go through the back door and wink wink at the court and say there isn't there is a settlement in existence when i thought that settlement wasn't immaterial both as a matter of law and as a matter of fact as a matter of fact you said it has that you called yourself a set off if it's a set off it has to be the set off we know there was a settlement he has to prove that it was for the same crimes for which he was convicted and he has to prove and then the supreme court standard of mcnulty that davison player not misconduct by employees of layering co for which might have been because of responsibility that they didn't want to get into i think i'm telling you that it could have been employees who were not acting and they were not liable for him to respond  doesn't play as we're acting illegally i am telling you as a matter of fact that the only reason that they settled less because the davis is deposition had been noticed he had received the target letter from the district attorney he didn't want to testify i got a call at night and i was told we've got to settle this before the deposition occurs tomorrow i'm negotiating and i got a settlement i have no reason to believe and i assure you your honor i mean i your hon skeptical about my representations to the court so i hope i can overcome that i assure your honor that i did not have evidence in my possession that would have rendered davis or blair liable for one dollar of mr pressman ok and there's an easy way out for you you could tell the courts that there is the possibility that someone may claim there is a set off that you do not believe it exists as a matter of law but as an officer of the court you're you are telling the court that that is an issue because you are dealing ex parte with the court in other words the other side isn't there to represent itself the other side isn't fair because i'm not sure what hidden them point as if the circumstances leading to the ex parte status are material a matter doesn't matter whether mr preston is at fault for not being in the courtroom does that give you  greater latitude to be deceptive in your behavior or to fail to things the court's attention or does that matter fact that you really are exploring all by itself no matter what because it is put an obligation of particular care upon you to be forthcoming and your honor it does matter and as i assured your honor i would have given the court a heads up had i not been barred by a court order he was asked to lift this court order in two thousand and thirteen well january fourteenth to lift this cord water and to allow disclosures to courts and what did he do he allowed this only to respects the five judges judge mcnulty judge ramos and then when i pointed out to judge total i pointed out to transcode though that there was some possibility that mr pressman would bring a motion to reopen the proceeding and judge decorous should be included in that judge stack what was included in that as well he did not allow disclosure to poor it's generally limited the disclosure to those courts and actually i think the only thing you're telling us at the outset of today's oral argument that the only thing that really would be confidential and should be disclosed would be the amount of the sun off that's as of today because what happened your honor which i discovered later and i've been doing this for a while but this goes back a long time i never used to look at the court's docket i kept my own docket of my a law office but was a guy named david wander what did my disclosure that said mr president hasn't paid looked at the fact that it may or may not have been aware of settlement because mr breslin i have sworn affidavits that he was aware for years aware for years that plaintiff said received one hundred percent of the last back where for years and and so i never thought there was an issue of mr breslin being trapped by statute and under bellman presidential decision by the circuit travelling has to occur first before there is any set off the very nature so so when we when so i certainly would never have risked my reputation risk disciplinary action played fast and loose in any respect with judge stack wroth had i believe that any of this was a not barred by court order be waived in a relevant explicitly by breast men because he the fourth did with knowledge of these facts and see factually irrelevant in any degree that because all of this was funny money it was not meaningful so if this is all funny money and you do wouldn't want to do anything that would put yourself at risk why in the world did you appeal why did i i'm not looking at  indicated said there's still a lot of money as far as i can tell these are your if you're so concerned and you should be about the risk to yourself and as i said you should be by not so your client who wishes to appeal i think you need to get another journey with regard to this because i know the facts so much that i would not take this i would not give up the appeal this is a sign this is not rocket science other people could easily come up to speed on what the facts are other people could come up to speed the flack here you're putting yourself in the crosshairs i personally i do your honor that would be true of some other attorney was standing up here as well and yes i know that i have an obligation to mike no the other dealer tony would say i just came into this case and the prior attorney that there's some question but you're going to have to look at it separately because judge ramos looked at it and decided that there wasn't anything sanctionable here judgment only based on what judge ramos did decided there wasn't a thing that's really sanction or deal with regard to the attorney and beyond that i'm just here trying to represent my client and what why would that those findings not equally be true with me standing here your honor the fact of the matter is that let's let's separate out what your honor feels is the tension in this conduct from what your honor feels is at issue on this appeal which is the vacation of a judgment under longstanding precedent from the supreme court and thankfully from this court in cuttack as i said your honor was on on that panel in the presidential opinion the two issues the public interest in that judgment is to apply race  feeling that in some unusual extraordinary sectional cases is where if you allow the judgment to stand there would be a grave miscarriage of justice here they taking the judgment is a great  miscarriage of justice my clients are in title in title to a rico judgment and traveling if you want to take the set off amount in fact i offered it openly to mr serota to judge substantial amount of settlement that could be and many would say would be set off against the fifteen point six million you say that's immaterial i say that's immaterial because we're never going to collect more than ten  seeking a send off he considered that's in the way back machine in two thousand and four that was in two thousand and four that's correct that was in two thousand and four and he could have shown up he could so so whatever he did in two thousand and four bound him with regard to what you did not tell the court in two thousand and thirteen fourteen with regard to the there is a possible so off i don't think could exist legally but there's a irrelevant at that stage because the mounts being collected so far exceeded rest minutes ability to pay that it was immaterial whether you had to set off or not and i was still under court order that prohibited me from disclosing that the minute i discovered that i could disclose the existence of the settlement and this goes to why the believe my representation the minute i disclosed that i could disclose evidence that there might be a settlement interest the judgments current value is thirty million eight hundred ninety five thousand nine hundred thirteen dollars and thirty nine cents to date more than ten years later plaintiffs have not seen a dime of this amount i natural reading of that i didn't make that state and your honor reading it from pages three of three to three or four the appendix and when you say i didn't make that statement that was in a brief i didn't write it was in a brief i guess i had some on that judge your name's on the brief yes it is yes it is so and so the question here your honor that statement was never made by me and was certainly and that statement was made i don't know when you see that statement was never made by me what does it mean i you put your name on a brief with that statement and then how how i mean i'm not sure how that helps you to say i never made that statement when your name is on the brief that's correct your honor i hired other more years to do bear some responsibility for it it has zero to do with the representations made in two thousand two thousand and four there was no such representation ever made at the time of the judgment was entered i under possible plausible claim of a set off i never thought of framing a disclosure that way and if i said that i don't know whether that would may be a set off here and it's this it's not insignificant the amount of sell off if there is one yes your honor i think and you wouldn't be standing here life would be easy yes it would and if i had thought of that way of navigating me out i would have given it a lot of thought and i wish i had made that disclosure but that's not what i thought i was being asked to disclose i thought i was being yes to disclose the existence of the settlement which mr breslin chose aware that's right that's right he may have felt that it was immaterial in fact whether he got a judgment against him for ten million or fifteen million or fifty million didn't matter that may have been his thinking but he but the issue that should concern the court because this was an adversary proceeding and yes mr breslin defaulted but i am not aware of a single court ever that has held that a lawyer inform the court of possible defenses that defending could raise and chose not to and i nonetheless nonetheless absent the court of water would have disclosed nonetheless my actions terry after prove that i didn't think that it was meaningful in any respect i thought it was as as you know if your honour's comments about mr pressman suggest entirely irrelevant fantasy money the judgment was required now i would have done just exactly what she said actually i would have done more if i was not under the court order i would have said there was a settlement in the baron versus pressman case with some of the defendants and the record reflects that mr davis and of the fact of the settlement due to a clerk's error well back to the fact of the matter is your honor i was in a position and if i thought that either i was obliged to violate the court order  obliged not to seek recovery at all on the judgment for example the question around are posed if my clients had received fifteen million dollars i would not have sought the release you know that you've gone down to here that there are record on the docket sheet of the existence of the settlement and once it is public so what you're really asking is doing and putting your reputation on the line is you're asking us to come up with a decision that may put you and your reputation at risk with regard to a matter that you say is your relevant in terms of the amount of ever really collecting on this and i don't understand i just don't understand you just tell me the reason you appeals because you're and your honor would have had the same right yes it's more uncomfortable for me to be here than it would be for the third party lawyer i think i can probably explain myself better than a third party but but i might not  don't think the questions of the third party attorney would be anywhere near as as tough were searing as the questions we've asked of you because you were present at the scene that's right  and it is tough and it is difficult and i faced this in to sanction motions and prevailed upon to thoughtful district judges to accept my explanation that was not any intent to deceive but but but what you risk here is having some type of disciplinary proceeding under federal appellate procedure forty six for conduct unbecoming an attorney and why take that risk your honor i think that the obligation to try and get my client's their judgment reinstated is what it is i don't know that i perceived that this court would feel that the allegations with respect to error not to enter a judgment for fifteen million dollars and it because under the rico statute a party seeking a judgment is required to be paid the full amount of their loss and that the loss from the rico activity trebled and someone i didn't believe that it was material now obviously it gives me some concern that your honor feels otherwise and that there is a risk of that but i assure your honor and i sure on the judgment on the issue of they came in the judgment of whether or not there was a misleading non disclosure as i said i think the settled case law and i think the implication of karen is the clear unequivocal and convincing evidence standard is there is no clear unequivocal and convincing evidence of any intent to defraud the court the evidence that exist such as it is is a quizzical and to me at least unconvincing the fact of the matter is that i didn't try and there would be no logic behind trying to afford the court to inflate a judgement that i thought was i'm collecting the entire because maybe ten years from now something all happened that will make a collectible in part i still feel the judgment if it does become collector when you get some portion of that do you know i have a contingency for you all right well i didn't but the fact of the matter is that never ever occurred to me as a realistic possibility in my actions prove it why on earth would i not attempt to collect dollar one on a fifteen million dollars plus judgment actually much more than that why would i never attempt to collect a penny for over a decade because you knew there wasn't anything there please the court michael serota call shots on behalf of mr pressman judge amplify make up back to the issue that you were wrestling with mr folkenflik for a moment on set off i think the timeline is fairly important because the set off issue when the plaintiff settled in the southern district of new york and settled for an amount of money just so we're clear why for the full now why don't when we when we did before we get into the facts talk about the standard of sanctions decision radiance right and we're we're here talking about not saying she's decision but a decision on an independent action for fraud on the court right and that different i think judge based  and the bankruptcy court made those factual findings on the for her in points and applied havering properly and meticulously as judge mcnulty confirmed and even if this is who are inclined to think that they might decide differently i believe the standard of review would still be an abuse of discretion as to the bank a few court's decision and there was there was there is nothing in the record that would reflect that the bankruptcy court in any way shape or form did anything other than metic follow the law including herring and so you know i just want to go back for a second judge to to the facts and then the issue of settle for if i may only because under the impression that somehow the court believes that the fraud was committed at the time that mr folkenflik in his second application to the banks the court didn't disclose the settle the truth of the matter is that he submitted a request for the fall of the bankruptcy court judge  damages he just documented all of what he called where the out of pocket amounts to do it only and to his clients ten weeks earlier ten weeks before he swore out that affidavit his clients were contingency fee were paid in full then they applied for the rico damages then they submitted another fraudulent affidavit that didn't disclose that they had been paid the full amount of the claim do we only have the clients and it wasn't as if he wasn't if you believe so strongly that it was a fraudulent affidavit why didn't you cross appeal the just because denial sanctions  decision applauds his conduct not that sanctions decision is as critical as it gets and it points out specifically both not quite as critical as he says and says in the end i don't think there was any bad faith here right as to application yes judge ramos specifically says that with respect to the issue of the four judgment that should be raised with another court and the reason i believe judge ramos said that is because we extracted the settlement agreement from judge total a day or two before we went before judge ramos on the sanctions here and so when mr quinn mr folkenflik says he felt that he was obligated to hide a settlement that was approved and funded ten weeks before he swore out an affidavit in the bankruptcy court the transcript before judge cole reflects otherwise i think he used the words it's frankly unthink with respect to to a lawyer not disclosing a settlement to other federal judges who asking what damages that lawyers clients have suffered so we believe that there is no that hearing talks about perjury and in fact the stigma in situ relying on here were statements that he made under under oath and so you would need to show perjury in order to suffered by your client and that was a fraudulent representation that was set forth in the affidavit that was an issue before judge ramos or judge mcnulty with respect to the the raids on five offices on and so and it was directed at the court because if your honour's review the order that was entered by judge toohey that granted the default judgment it specifically references that it relied on the very half  folkenflik has has made reference to the fact that somehow mr breslin was aware of this settlement the record does not substantiate that statement and in fact the lower court  specifically found that the only statement that could be relied upon to support the situation were the accurate and sole statements of mr folkenflik in an affidavit and a subsequent submission for rico damages and representations that he made throughout the proceedings in two thousand and thirteen so mr folkenflik throughout these proceedings said it's mr bresson's fault at one point called the bankruptcy court you know perhaps you could go on e c f it was everybody's fault except his own but the bankruptcy court and district court found otherwise so what do we do with just ramos's fining th never dealt with the march nineteen ninety eight i'm sorry nine hundred ninety nine affidavit or the subsequent one for trouble damages the only issues that were before judge ramos and judge mcnulty with respect to sanctions w parte applications and orders that were at their we believe that mr folkenflik submitted false statements to obtain those orders that were completely unrelated to the entry of the initial default judg so your position is that in saying he was not sanctionable because there could there wasn't defining a bad faith when he went in judges in the pens which person from the office way when he went before judge ramos he went in for an attachment order based upon the use trying to collect trying to collect based upon the default judgments that were entered the fourth judgment integrity was never ever before judge ramos because nobody knew until the day before the hearing that it was pretty sure based upon fraud the judge total released the order saying you could share the settlement with your adversaries and more importantly with three federal judges you can share with them the day before or two days before we went before judge lane most which was purely on the issue of the ex parte orders legs when he gets the judge  did and they refiled it judge mcnulty was giving full faith and credit by entering orders in new jersey that were mirror images of new york judgment noting the record reflects judge jordan it reflects that he was  so what you're saying is that efforts to collect there was no way had faith founded the effort to collect but there is bad faith in the underlying judgment yes your honor and and your reasoning for that is that once a dreamless was the only with it he just didn't know because if he'd known about the default judgment he'd come out differently when the when dealing with the effort which became an issue within twenty four or forty eight hours before his sanctions hearing on the collection efforts and that's the judgment nobody he spoke loud and clear on the issue he denied sanctions on the ex parte order but he was same judge that presided over the application to vacate the default judgment and found that notwithstanding the sanctions ruling which is crystal clear in his opinion that a fraud on the court was committed the bankruptcy court committed  and the judgment should be vacated so well district court judges on the issue of sanctions vs the issue of a kid in the fall are crystal clear as to what was before them at that time and there was no cross over and in fact judge at the conclusion of the argument before judge ramos judge ramos put the question to me in a very point of fashion he said mr c wrote it as we sit here today that on my ruling on sanctions is the default judgment that's been entered valid or not and i said judge with all due respect i can't answer that as a yes or no based upon what we learned yesterday he said yes or no i said it's fraudulent he said i'm not getting into the issue and he didn't get into the issue rightfully so because it was brando but the courts below when we brought the application in it's entirety addressed it and addressed it in a full some way and frankly their decision should be affirmed the only other thing that i'd like to redress quickly is this site this idea that somehow and again it goes back from important issue for us because judge amber you spent considerable time on it judgement wasn't procured by fraud the judgement was a legitimate judgment but base possible so off was not disclosed to the court released that there was an argument of a so off what when it was first admitted and the court asked for a statement of the plaintiff's damages the affidavit that was submitted articulated all of the damages without any disclosure that ten weeks earlier the i think that your honor i think there was some one certainty about that but but i think that in particularly in this case we are effectively judge that growth rather than affidavits without having any testimony so it's like me specifically and explicitly avoided dealing with the validity of that judgment focused solely on the sanctions question and so a finding of no bad faith as to the sanctions is addressed the fact that i had not disclose the existence of the settlement which was not discovered just the day before of the exact amount was discovered around that time but the existence of the settlement was mr breslin was aware of throughout the when that's the person's bresnan in october and so they were aware of that judgement no judge ramos explicitly addressed whether my non disclosure the exact same nondisclosure that incurred in two thousand and four with that nondisclosure was in bad faith he concluded in two thousand and thirteen that there was no bad faith in two thousand and thirteen because of that non disclosure and what i believe the court order required at that time there is no reason to believe and i've sworn that i had the same belief about what the court order required in two thousand and four so there is no clear and convincing evidence no evidence sufficient that i i had a different belief in two thousand and four and my non disclosure was for any reason other than the fact that i was barred from disclosing judge and while at that time the existence of the settlement the later when i discovered the error on the docket i learned with the existence could be disclosed and i certainly wish i knew that when i appeared in front of the stack rough as i thought of this close there was my legal position is sound yes nobody has it wasn't presented to me but in my legal position about the relevance of that money to the set off in light of the default in the absence of proof was the same i certainly would have been happy to litigate it then and i have no reason to believe i would benefit my clients would benefit from not disclosing so i quotation that had nothing to do with non disclosure in two thousand and four whatsoever it had to do with an objection that the settling party made to disclosing the dollar amount that was actually paid rather than the amount of the settlement think i'd like to close with saying that i don't think that where this court to consider action with respect to me or where this court or if this court's considering that the completely separate question material to the court because it was legally material and he listened duty to do that despite the existence of a court order that at the time of the presentation barred the disclosure of the existence of the settlement respectfully i think that i hope to persuade this court that a lot of talking in the courts as from very hard questions but i hope to persuade this court that in this particular instance it is which is true and throughout my career that i would always give a court a heads up in a in a one sided proceeding if i could because of the extraordinarily unusual circus stances of this case i felt i did not have the duty and was ard by a quart of water from doing so actually i do have one final question of you or any other and he displayed proceedings that were brought against your claims brought against you the only claim i had brought against me was that when i drafted a letter to go to people who were on the board of a charity and who were trying to conceal the existence of by members of the administration of the charity so i wrote a letter to the board in strong language urging them not to do that and i was unaware at the time that one or two of those members of the board had filed a motion to challenge the to challenge the election and so they were represented parties and i was unaware of it when that letter went out they were presented the attorney who is representing them if you will get together with the mr williams and have that put in process and split the cost thank you very much and your honor i and i invite the court if the court wishes to have any further proceedings at any time i'd be happy to