complaint that a now the justice found duplicative an untimely right and then he proceeded pro se on his original complaint and there were his attorney that had to do with whether we were able to maintain contact with each other which we were not for exigent circumstances but the fact remains that when he filed the pro se complaint the pro se complaint was on the form provided him by the district and he was in april of two thousand and thirteen yes and he attached to that and not a few documents but many documents and i think this court can see that that the district court abuse contact with him by my office for a significant period of time and he called me with respect to another matter which has nothing to do with this proceeding and he said that there is a motion to dismiss with respect to the complaint that i filed and he asked me to represent him on that and i did and in the course of that i did you asked the judge in connection with that to consider the sufficient specificity to mete out justice possibly through the sixty nine pages of attachments and figure out what the coin is no i think the claim is clear on its face the claim is clear because the very document that he attaches is the decision of the state division of human rights which states very clearly that what mr jamaat is alleging is that he was an african american supervisor supervising  line workers who taunted him and bullied him and were insubordinate and that both management and the union a bad in this situation had gone on for years that's not an issue are twelve b six or under rule fifty six the issue is does that give fair notice to the transit authority that this is what the complaint is and the transit authority cannot say they didn't have fair notice because they submitted a rebuttal to the charge before the state division of human rights and that's incorporated in the decision and his response was also was while all of these  sea investigator investigating the transit authority stay this is my second complaint on continuous racial bullying at the track on the transit authority that's fair notice the transit work what i'm saying is they made a motion to dismiss yes and the motion to dismiss also sounded under twelve b six stating that there were claims that were time baud that were annex documents are incorporated and they present a claim and a claim they present is one involving yet race and age and alleged disability so i think that there is whole fashion you're not i would say a judge can skew the per se an opportunity to amend the complaint which he did on and then i would just be impossible as i believe judge who's properly uses discretion in determining to go through over seventy pages of attachments i believe there are twenty seven typewritten pages that were just impossible for the judge to understand what the plaintiff was saying and then subsequent to that mr  mister mr buck appeared and he submitted a third well i don't know if you call the complainer third submission in the case where he attached all the previous complaints as exhibits and basically submitted that to the court  prejudicial to the transit authority to now one track over it what i've read it initially at the at the point where in the second complaint when mr was afforded opportunity to amend had mr clarke come in there and submitted the in another complaint that would have been fine but where it it's no years later it's several years and we have witnesses who is recollections hell and people retire and it's not fair to to to force the transitory to defend a case at this point after so many years have passed  with the one i was preparing but he had not told me that when did you learn of the first i learned of the first complaint when i reviewed the docket on the complaint that i had filed right all right and then i complaint that he had filed which i read and review i'm sure you were aware of it when when when the case was dismissed in september of two thousand and then he came came to me and said the transit authority he said i wouldn't want to i wanted to proceed pro se and then he told me that the transit authority made a motion to dismiss in the court was giving him an opportunity to submit opposing papers and then he asked me to represent him again and you  amended complaint because he chose to do that on his own and didn't tell me what he was used to represent technically you represented technically i represented in the as the nose of appearance and then of what effectively looks like a post a complaint but what on the record is a counsel complaint is filed that's where we've got to conclude that that would not it's so you don't get the benefit or you're fired doesn't get the benefit of the jim i had gotten in touch with me and i was able to get in touch with him at that point then he could have filed an amended complaint or incorporated my original complaint that did not happen but he filed an amended complaint and i think the amended and i disagree with the district court the amended complaint on page four states very clearly that he was harassed bullied and forced to retire on in november of two thousand  the that is page one hundred two and then a net and next to that is a nine page statement fortunately it's double space that does refer to specific incidents yes some of these go back thirty years but others are are recent in time and they relate to the essence of the complaint which was racial harassment bullying and taunting on the part of his subordinates and whether that was in the in the brody complaint or not in the brody complaint did not take the court a great deal of difficulty to go through it and say yes there is a and and and then do that rather than waiting two years until two thousand and fifteen and then filing some kind of a filing that contains all the prior readings and said judge you  regular contact with my office however he contacted me and the docket indicates a number of conferences which he did not ask me to attend if we look at the pros the original pro se complaint the pro se complaint contains the essence of his charge against the defendant which is which doesn't need repeating specific references and the amended complaint clearly parses those out and does have a an even clearer statement so the question is is whether at some point he was represented or