on the calendar lynn versus bailey and gallagher first of all you appreciate the privilege of being here this is probably one of the first on the watch you can be heard the as far as being pro se we are not here because we want to save money or something the university we're here because we have a hardship disrespect and we were never actually heard we just want access to the courts that the defendants have conspired to one another to deprive us of due process one outrageous threat that i believe sums it  up one of the defendant attorney was a pastor missed a test or he was off of the court is we are smart bunch you will never win we know all judges we will get you to death these threats made us more sad than angry fact one of the defendants mr gill house with twenty seven thirty years experience experience also had made other threats mr gill house was terminated from the law office that he worked at for twenty seven years we believe that for lack of a better phrase he was the fall guy for the bank c e o for telling them to do all these malicious things to us and and deprive us of our civil rights  could you identify what all these militias things are because i'm having trouble understanding where there is an underlying fraud here it sounds as i read the complaint as if the bank lent you a lot of money  in the circumstances of an unfortunate an economic turndown you were not able to repay and then they sought foreclosure and they elected to pursue that rather than to pursue negotiation a negotiated settlement my black customers were victims of this commission bias which i make complaints and have tallied against i want to trust your bank and tell them that i'm having issues and your alone may be in jeopardy due to these issues and you have you have a responsibility to at least help me and their horrible comment was that your problem you do we have to do to get us paid that may be nasty yes but what is unlawful about insisting on what they did is first i know they're allowed to do it they foreclose on the note instead of the mortgage my property is worth more more then that i owed one of the four causing the note because they wanted to go after me personally because the bank c e o didn't like me for some reasons because i said that they were conducting themselves like street dogs i probably should've said that but they did so in any event instead of foreclosing on a mortgage they foreclose on a note their own appraisal show that the prop is worth more and to me that's just not a responsible thing for a bank to do they could have foreclosed on the mortgage and can have me for a deficiency but you understand that you're charging them with conducting a racketeering and rise which involves multiple criminal acts of fraud and now you're telling me that they did something that was a an irresponsible business practice i'm going to get to  that well that's the bank the bank and i always said the bank has a right to do you know come after me don't be nice about it but they have you by the rules that's why i'm here didn't go by the rules so i had no choice but to go into bankruptcy court and declare bankruptcy for protection protect deprive me that protection because they still pursued me after my bankruptcy discharge what did they do they filed a fraudulent lawsuit upstate in albany that during bankruptcy i fortunately conveyed half of an office building to my wife to beat them out of money which is totally untrue with that they were able to obtain a six year restraining order on all income which basically destroyed us the problem is they based their loan on the fact that we are both fifty percent owners and they also wanted to refinance our building and had all our documents and documentation showing that so they deliberately lied to this judge in order to choke us with this restraining order which it did so over the course of time we had to litigate that and that was also in that was also a bankruptcy judge just charged violation and we finally won on that but after our house was being foreclosed on after we lost our business after we almost lost our house and numerous other things i'm going to bring this up because the defendants  after twenty seven years i want to go to court and get discovery and and have due process so i can show why he was fired there is a lot of collateral damage to what was done to us including our son's deprivation of his rights by when you when they deprived us of our all of our income our son had a back injury and we wanted to send him to cleveland clinic and pay out of pocket for his be a gentleman and he could be a nice person but we don't know if he was conspiring with them to cause harm to us or if he just made an honest mistake and i never got to that point to complain it's not at all clear what what he is well done well he rubber stamped something that was that was incorrect and had he not done that we would have had to process to show that the bank wasn't following proper procedures and he may have made a mistake and actually i kind of believe that he did because i know people who know him and they said he's a gentleman but we also based on our personal experiences trust maybe they were conspiring with him to cause damage on to us border to somebody successfully you have to have some basis at the time you file the complaint it's not only a question of whether mr gallagher did something wrong because he's been dismissed on grounds of judicial immunity and so he's not really and i didn't see anything in your brief that said that shouldn't have been done but you're saying he's part of the racket discovery we don't know if he did that or he just made a mistake but the mistake that he made was significant to us and we don't know if it was an honest mistake or you know just go call them and said you know get get this guy and make their lives miserable but in any event i'm going to go back to what i was saying i do apologize for for mixing them up and as far as the judicial immunity is concerned we don't believe that mr gallagher was acting in his capacity as a decision maker he was acting in a capacity of is these these papers correct or not correct so i think it was decision on that it was just to object lee verify that certain papers were being filed and that's the problem that we have with that  as far as getting back to the restraining order i was getting on to this and i'm not telling this story because i want sympathy but it is a major thing when you deprive people of all their income and a person that family has a health condition and that deprived of that it can make this have a serious impact for example our son had a back injury we want to send the cleaving clinic for therapy because we deprive their income by the restraining order that was a sham  didn't go for eight months at the end the months he did go and it was found that he had stage four cancer in those eight months this would think me the most the doctor said that had he come earlier when we wanted to he probably would have had stage four cancer that really really bothers us and i'm not blaming them on the cancer i am blaming him that when you file a sham lawsuit against someone and deprive them of their income and rights and property rights it has collateral damage i want to be heard on that i want to show my evidence i know we have enough evidence to show this among other things and i know i only have a certain amount of time i do have a lot of notes but i do believe that we fit all the criteria  proceed with a rico case that it is not the price there was people acting with one another knowingly and deliberately breaking a law in order to cause damage to us most of them are officers of the court attorneys who lied they know they lied by getting their six year restraining order because they had the papers and they base their papers there all alone on the fact that we both have always owned comments and that our tax returns our county our lawyers all file that with the woods that this was the fact so really the premise is based on the fact that they lied to court to the court to the judge to hear sixty restraining order that really killed us when you take people's income away for six years it causes major destruction i'm not going to go on and on about all the help and all the issues but i believe that anybody would be able to understand that we just want our day in court they have done everything outrageous to deprive us of going to court in fact we want the state courts the merits of our case was strong strong that we proselyte against peers the corporate veil  of the bank c e o which is which is a major thing meaning is a lot of merits to it the judge in that case instructed the defendants not to file a summary judgment he ignored it and filed it anyway and then the judge decides on it there's something really wrong with that when they don't follow the rules and the judge allows them to not follow the rules and we are the ones who are never being heard and i think they're just trying and they've had want to stay on and that's why we're here today  page complaint and and filed a five million dollars fine against trusts go for all their wrongdoings for other items i'm just showing you that what their demeanor is so thank you if you have it including yes documentation is to pursue that and yet we've been deprived of it over and over again i can go on for hours and more concise way if we're able to be heard they never argue the facts only aren't the only make up things to force us to have to it please the court my name is jonathan nelson i represent all the pelleas except for christopher gallagher your honors as set forth at length in my brief the facts of the instant matter do not come close to setting forth sufficient facts to make out a rico cause of action this is why appellants will never be able to make out an rico enterprise a pattern of racketeering or resulting injury i think i've addressed those points fairly full some in my brief and so unless there are questions with regard to that i think my my limited time is better served addressing how we got here because what the facts of this matter do sufficiently demonstrate is this is the second out of three attempts of appellants to go after  trussville bank and the related defendants are the same set of factual groupings the third set is a recent state court action that was recently dismissed as not before this court so any dition to making out the rico action what appears to receive the factual groupings the facts that are alleged in this action could have been raised in trust goes action on the notes in two thousand and eight they are identical to him were raised in defense of trust goes fraudulent conveyance action that was the action that appellant had mentioned are identical and this is important to those raised in appellant in a state court action in two thousand and fourteen indeed a lot of the amended complaints are actually just copied and pasted from that complaint into this amended complaint and so this type of religion gating this court is has seen it before i think a case that i've cited that's particularly on versus bank of new york where this court upheld a dismissal of the rico complaint based upon race judicata grounds and so as this court can readily ascertain from the prior actions again in particular the two thousand and fourteen state court action they present the same facts the same transaction the same connected series of transactions are at issue the same evidence needed to support both matters are presented the same facts essential to both matters were indeed raised and litigated and then mr gallagher is properly treated said as a judicial officer as a referee and is entitled to absolute immunity neither of the two exceptions to the general rule apply he was acting within his judicial capacity and capacity the facts supporting his assertion of immunity are undisputed and were undisputed here by the appellants on september twenty seventh two thousand and thirteen the rockland supreme court appointed him as referee in the trust go for closure action acting as what brings about the appointment of a referee in a foreclosure auction is that routine i did that is routine and he is and is appointed by the judge in order to perform certain actions including the computation of the amount to the lender and the administration of the sale and it's given to the judge ultimately it's given to the judge ultimately the judge signs to foreclosure action i think the case to look at is green cattle like a cadillac with a k y it's brokers and the right well the court will delegate certain tasks to the referee and that happens in every foreclosure i am not aware whether that happens in every foreclosure i know it happens often and i have actually a number of cases cited in which it did happen and the only did he act within his judicial capacity but act absolute immunity applies even if the referees actions are based in malice and that supreme court case old supreme court case well pearson  have known that he was acting in clear absence of jurisdiction and that's a second circuit case tucker v out water one eighteen f there are nine thirty and that's from one thousand nine hundred seven so concluding as a duly appointed referee mr gallagher took actions in keeping with his appointed capacity regardless of whether he is a suit accused of nonfeasance or malfeasance he's being sued based on the actions that he took as the referee and therefore we guard less of any and we believe utterly unfounded criticisms or suspicions that the appellant's may have about his actions he's afforded absolute immunity both as a referee and individual and the district court's decision should be affirmed thank you thank you all for your arguments the court will reserve decision and the clerk will adjourn court