everybody ok go ahead if i don't use seven minutes to do i have the rest for voting yes ok i'm here to ask you to allow my case to move forward to trial on the merits and contrary to what on defense said that i got one filled out copy i got no field let me go ahead and let me tell you what's on my mind so you can educate me and educate me out of it if i am mistaken i look at the complaint and it alleges misconduct entirely by washington mutual and not giving you the proper number of copies  is a claim entirely based on washington mutual's misconduct and the f d i c at any federal institution here is not a receiver for any other bank so if it was some other banks misconduct then they couldn't do anything about it but it is a receiver for washington mutual and so i don't understand how you can get around those two analysis of why the the borrower to rescind against a current holder nobody else can we stand now there's been you know all this argument and language about going to the f d a i see because the f d a i see took over washington mutual but this lawsuit is not against washington mutual this lawsuit is against the current holder bank of america or concern well here's what i understand your argument to be that your argument is that regardless of what the statute says recession claims are always against the current holder either way the f d i c never could have resolved your claim so that's why exhaustion doesn't apply that's how i understand your argument is correct i'm not saying i agree with that but i'm just saying that's what i understand your argument to be i am i right that's correct so have we ever specifically help that the plaintext of fire does not apply to claims that are not susceptible to resolution to the issued the notion that there could be any exceptions to the plain text of the statute which states that any actor omission alleged against a failed bank must underscore must be exhausted but you can't exhaust it now see that's what's been happening and so people logically you say how can the f b i seaver singalong when they don't and how can they do that logically you say that to yourself as an everyday person and but but nobody but this is never happened and that's why i want to discovery down below to find out what the f b i cia has done and you have you guys ever rescinded alone but the lower court judge would not let me have discovery so and what i did is i sent a letter to the f d i c and i said please help me with this recession the f b i she sent me a letter back said we can't it's we you know we don't want to take a look at the letters and what the letter says is that didn't do what it to transact on behalf of lasalle bank and you can contact we suggest that you contact the successor bank of america directly it didn't say that they couldn't do anything about anything no matter what the claim was all they said was they don't have the capacity to act on behalf of this new bank that isn't in receivership right the bank that has a loan well that's how how does that offset that material from our previous case that says if it's all the successor in interest of current holder is not in receivership and so we don't have an authority we can't we can't rescind a loan that lasalle bank of america owns well why don't we you're down to one minute and twenty five seconds or whatever why don't you have a seat we'll hear from the other side and i'll give you two minutes rebuttal ok so that way we can see what the argument is on the other side thank you or to tell and if i could  the issue about it not being in the f b i see receivership pull our our it's a little murky i mean are we kind of there is some loose language that floats around about this susceptible of resolution you know whether you go with the plain text or what does this susceptible of resolution mean and so maybe you can help me and tell me what he should have done so  to give him afoot you know to allow him to be in federal court sure and for that purpose i would point you to the district court's decision and long which mr shaw relies on the district of massachusetts decision where the borrower went to the this process but to go to your question about what it means to have a claim that susceptible to resolution all it means is that the f b i c is able to administer the claim in the process and in this case if they don't have the note can they do anything i think that's what he's trying to say i mean it would be sort of like if you come to court but i don't have your file so i think i'm going to tell you you can't come to court today i apologize for interrupting you i think that's the difference between roman that one and roman at two in fiery as a roman at one talks about claims as claims relate to any act or mission of a failed institution or the f d i c notably the provision does not make any distinction based on the identity of the party from whom relief is sought and i think the same language disposes of mr shows argument about being an a about the rest of the case because the rossa court held that the claimants were exempt from exhaustion because their demand for an injunction to prevent their pension plans terminations was not susceptible of resolution under contention that the f d i c could not every solved his claim why is his case different and russia i have to confess i don't remember the specific facts of resign remember it being an incredibly confusing receivers think this case is no different from rundgren which also rose from amu and j p morgan chase and benson which also did as well as kelly and carmichael and fatah low what about wilner will there will not i think is on all fours with this case as well there that was what is the equivalent of lewis's and they wanted a declaration that j p morgan chase could not foreclose on their home and that declaration that the that the mortgage was void and the th circuit said all of your allegations concerned a legit misconduct by instead of sending if you see this letter about security pacific after he filed the action that's before us the plaintiff had before that action brought a proper claim with the f d i c in the receivership proceeding based on while most misconduct and seeking to rescind the loan on the ground that his right to rescind had not been  going to have the practical effect of making everything proceed in accord with the court's view but the f t c have that authority i think that said yeah you're entitled to rescind it like happens asking it's meant to be a voluntary mutual process where a party resends and if the creditor agrees that they have the right to resend for example during the three day period of three where their workers rescission is during the three days before you even got the  money you call the bank you say you know i don't want to go through with it and you both just tear up the papers and go away precisely or if you already got the money you bring it back to them precisely and then you all just walk away so if what we're talking about is a scenario where someone has land then what might have happened in this case courts have rejected the argument that any claims for non monetary declaratory equitable relief can't be brought to the f d i c and they've said all of those need to be agreed the question of whether the f could bind a rd party with squarely presented and will never in the courts said it doesn't matter it's irrelevant to the question of whether you need to grieve whether you need to bring your claim to the f b i he said even if the f t c cannot establish as a matter of r borrower that the lender in those circumstances the holder of the note would have said all right we're getting our money back the f b i cia has said that you didn't get the requisite number of disclosures let's do what to listen as and let's resend voluntarily i will dissolve my security interest tomorrow understand so what is the status of the property now i know that answer risotto blondness but what what what is happening in the real world here my understanding and you should certainly ask mr shaw for confirmation is that he has reentered bankruptcy he's ok the i'm not a deadbeat it's the only problem i have this is islam and the reason in bankruptcy is because of this if i were to if i were to be successful in a recession i could tender i could tender the value the riches everything it's no longer underwater it never was underwater ok but i would just i would address the one last point where you so have they said have you talked to them at all the jews mediate this case with them at all we mediated the case yes we did i'm just i mean it's not we generally mediate cases and if we feel that there's some way that people can raise i mean we're going to call we call the ball on the  ok that's basically and generally no one ever likes what we say but it that's what we just have to call whatever the law is then we have a conference about this so i can't tell you what we're going to do that but you mediate it out in the th circuit call it for short it ok and it's the one that says any claim then that's we're talking about the conduct of the bank but there's two parts to that to that sentence the st part is any claim and the whatever reason congress apparently said that's what you got to do before you come here but all but there's case law that clarifies that and it says a claim under five riya is a claim that can be resolved by the f d a i c and this claim can't maybe you can sort of kind of be resolved if they give an opinion then everybody agrees but they don't have the power to resolve it that letter said that now  is a different thing it's a statutory consumer protective statute to be interpreted broadly to protect the consumer and it tells you how to rescind a loan and it says you write a letter to the bank and that's how you were sent to write a letter and you can and usually end against the current holder the current holder those are the people in the lawsuit the bank of america and u s bank the current holders washington mutual's not in it chase not in it and that's why they said we don't have jurisdiction or whatever we don't we can't resolve this case where you and if they can't resolve it then it's not a claim under fire it doesn't meet the definition of a  claim now would be futile so what comes st it's not a claim or it's futile it's futile so it's not a claim i don't know but i think they're kind of the same all right i think we're aware of both of your arguments and thank you both for your argument in this matter and this will stand submitted thank you