all right our fourth case for this morning will be kennedy against schneider electric  mr davis document that we referred to as a document that violates and actually becomes a little sixty for what on the court and i believe the briefs sets forth that defendant relied on that document they solicited that document doctored that document and submitted it to the court as a document that referenced true information to defend into his background and what was taking place prior to that is that mr kennedy was working for two years obviously he applied for the position was hired to teach certain classes and  don't think were really confronting what went on mr kennedy may or may not have been quote qualified in some ultimate sense to just this class and it's really not for this court to say experience can qualify people to know about things or not what perry state said that it was concerned about was that he didn't have certain credentials that apparently he didn't have and as part of the  process one looks at the credentials of the people and teach an institution whether it's a college whether it's a community college a high school whatever and so i really don't think any of the things you're talking about are the kinds of things that at this very late day would justify setting aside the decision of the district court well your honor in response to that what we're saying is that the records clearly show that they're looking into his qualifications was not based on whether or not he was qualified then there should have been an appeal this is not your rule sixty is not the vehicle for saying that the district court was relying on the wrong evidence or asking the wrong question or in any other way making a mistake i except that your honor and what i'm saying is that would not appeal in the decision for instance therefore i did not look to wait two years i wanted to be sure that what i saw in the course opinion of was verified by documents and evidence that was submitted by by the defendant and it was not i was then not russian i contacted the higher learning commission i never the then response from them i contacted them again time list last and at that time but i wasn't anxious falsity of this document was apparent on its face yes but you're also saying it took you two years to come to the conclusion that seems to me to be a rather clear contradiction well i see why it would be but again i did not rush to go to there i looked at a lot of documents and information i study them over and over again to see whether the court apparently did not see certain things that and in fact some documents from a deposition was submitted to the court from the defendant and within those documents the defendant said to the court to counsel said to the court in within those depositions are some said that well and that should have been brought up in opposition to summary judgment at the time that that that that occurred i was not anxious to go there that quickly i wanted to make sure what i  saw was correct but that was not your choice there are timing rules that allow litigation to move forward even if you would have liked more time at a minimum you ask the court for time you do something other than just may please more the court good morning my name is stacy tehran and i am counsel for defendant appellee schneider electric in this matter the event giving rices to this appeal happened over seven years ago and involved a third party removing a kennedy from teaching at its college because it did not because he did not meet the teaching credentials as the court was was mentioning in his questioning when mr kennedy lost in summary judgment he should have appealed that summary judgment he should have f a motion to reconsider he didn't do any of that instead he waited nineteen months and he filed a rule sixty three motion to set aside the judgment fraud in the court and a motion to disqualify magistrate judge cherry but in those briefs there is nothing new there's no evidence of fraud there's no evidence of bias and so we address in our brief thirteen issues on appeal and i'm not going to waste the court's time addressing each one of those but what i want to do is address some of the statements that was made by attorney davis the first being that the document on its face the declaration of deanery hansell per state college was indeed false was perjur first of all there's nothing on on face of that declaration that is false she stated as to her understanding of the requirements to teach at the college that a set by another third party the higher learning commission when she learned that the appellant mr kennedy had not demonstrated that he met those credentials and that further when they asked him for proof that he did he did not supply that pretty well i mean i suppose we can all agree that it's one thing to have the credentials particular degree and it's a different thing maybe to be very big maybe you don't have a degree in french but you're fluent in the french language because you learned it because you lived there for a few years or something but to teach french in an institution you normally would have to show that you have a bachelor's degree in a certain number of teaching courses so i take it we're not really on the topic of whether he had been doing a good job teaching the class or anything it's just he didn't need the credentials right you're absolutely correct he did that at the conventions and in fact he can see that in his deposition if i may in his deposition mr no attorney for example for defendant schneider electric in that deposition asked mr kennedy do you have a bachelor's degree he said no and that at record three sixty three lines three  do you have an associates degree mr kennedy said no that's not line three seventy eight on page three sixty three of his deposition in the record he then asked do you have a documented journeyman status mr kennedy said no that's not lines nine through thirteen on page three sixty what was we teaching he was teaching engineering electronic type class and each of those questions that were asked in the deposition  that are required by the higher learning commission in order for the college to have somebody teach at its college and maintain its credentials and so you know that as i was saying the declaration it's not false but even so there is nothing on it to have led anybody to know let alone defense counsel that a third party was submitting a perjured affidavit  perjury itself is not good enough to show fraud on the court in the circuit he had to show that we defendant schneiders counsel knowingly submitted that perjured testimony to the court and that when we did so in order to have properly that here there's nothing here to show that the declaration was perjured or that schneider's counsel knew that such speculation was perjured when it's made it to the court and that's the standard for fraud on the court here in the seventh circuit it's clear be one two and three are out correct your honor based upon i believe it was the reply brief submitted and the sixty three motion in front of the district court it was clarified that it was truly a sixty three motion  you know certainly the evidence was all there in the record it doesn't take one thousand months to come up with what this argument and even so this argument has no basis in law or fact and that's  why magistrate judge cherry granted our motion for sanctions against attorney davis you know i feel that our brief has really hit each of the issues in each of the orders that are at issue and so unless there's any questions i believe i'm i'm finishing appreciate the time this morning i see no answer thank you very much you have about two and a half almost three minutes left mr davis two minutes and union type of person in fact i would refer this court to supplement pages i think i said to brace but i meant supplement pages twenty seven twenty eight twenty nine lastly i would mention that that document  indicated that after receiving a phone call suddenly there was a need to check his qualifications it wasn't that he was not qualified it was ask a phone call that phone call hansell he's qualified and that decision had to be can still the class had to be cancelled subsequently he was offered another position which he was qualified for these facts were known to dean's hansell as well as they were known i've been a prosecutor for several years and never had a problem with prosecutorial misconduct i've been a defense attorney and i may hear an officer for the very police department here and of violations by the police departments i am careful about and i take pride in that twenty someone years i've been an attorney i don't believe that what ever the court want to decide warranted personal sanctions number one and i believe there's enough facts to support that when dean hansell says it was based on the higher learning commission nothing was supported and submitted that verified that it was right after a telephone call from from someone