to do i will soon not point guys on the street corner but by all people the log agrees so this is this is a serious matter it's not only a serious matter because i lost understand that the basis for the judge's ruling in dismissing your case were principles that as a lawyer i know you're familiar with of race card of collateral stoppel and the statute of limitations you wan take the minute you have left to tell us why the judge was wrong in reaching those conclusions about why the judge came to those conclusion well not why he came to them but why you are saying he's right because subject matter jurisdiction statute of limitations and if the claims were not time barred they would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted the district court also acted within its discretion and finding  litigant and by enjoining her from filing any new actions and the southern district of new york without attaching a copy of the district court's order to any future case initiating papers appellant filed this lawsuit in two thousand and fifteen following th a substantially similar lawsuit in two thousand and fourteen by the district court for the northern district of california in both lawsuits appellant allege that merrill lynch acted with a third party to steal and convert certain stock certificate and doing so appellant ignores that the disposition of those very same stock certificates was adjudicated in a related bankruptcy proceeding in which the bankruptcy court authorized their sale that was in two thousand and one appellant attempted to challenge first in california and when the case was dismissed here in new york the district court's order should be affirmed on four grounds first the district court properly dismissed appellants claims against merrill lynch is barred by the doctrine of race judicata based on the dismissal of the california action which adjudicated the same and similar claims against the same party and resulted in a final judgment on the merits in both cases appellant asserted causes about action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence in connection with the same alleged injuries in the same alleged wrongs all relating to merrill lynch's role in the disposition of the stock certificates those claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim appellants addition of fraud conversion and conspiracy claims in this action does not change the focal focal point of her complaint in california and all of those claims could have been brought their second district court properly dismissed appellants claims based on collateral estoppel and lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent that they seek to challenge and reopen the bankruptcy proceeding all factual and legal issues relating to the disposition of the stock certificates at issue here were adjudicated on the merits and not proceeding and affirmed on appeal such that another attack on the sale of the stock certificates cannot be pursued in a further proceeding third the district court properly dismissed appellants claims as time barred this lawsuit was not filed until two thousand and fifteen well beyond the apply couple two to four year limitations periods for the claims that issue which arose from events that transpired almost fifteen years prior and there's no basis for any tolling of those limitations periods for the district court properly ordered that appellant's claims were they not time barred they would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted based on the allegations in the first amount of complaint and the many judicial records from the prior proceedings there are simply no potential for a reasonable inference that merrill lynch is responsible for any of the misconduct alleged moreover the first man a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against merrill lynch for all of the foregoing reasons the district court's order should be affirmed i would be happy to answer any questions that the panel may have but otherwise will submit thank you thank you you have a minute to respond judge it all and then allow computershare to be introduced and that is that this part of office i believe corruption i have a i have a constitutional right to know that corruption is a very strong word in this not equate to error mean judges can make mistakes without being corrupt you know when you are well it's just you've used the word twice i have used it  decision quickly the other two cases on our calendar are submitted so we stand richard thank you very much