we have one more case on our calendar this morning charles versus leavitt and end all and everyone's here all right very good thank you honor today my first grandson is being born in elmer's queens hospital there and i know that and that may not sound relevant but if you bear with me i'm going to explain to you why i consider that relevant  i want to explain to the court my motivation for bringing this type of case it's not an easy type of case to bring i'm making allegations here about attorneys and an actual clerk clerk of the of the of the court alleging that they committed fraud and things that i believe might be violations of the civil provisions of the rico act i laid out in my my complaint the facts and the law as as far as i mind standing is set forth in twamley as explained in ashcroft is that determining whether a complaint states that yeah that's what they're the ones what is the fraud well there's a number for i mean there's well first of all the the fact that the that that the case that they started the receivership if it was based upon documents where we consider to be fraudulent but also the fact that there are any allegation that the legal fees were not my client has alleged that that they were not o might not have put it in my complaint in the way that should have been put in but i had my understanding that that was the that he did sign this confession of judgment he did but as we say it was signed under duress he's in the last season last imagines he's in last he's got a trial his he's his life in the line right here is his freedom is on the line three weeks long trial in the last three days of the trial his lawyer come to him and says you've got to sign this because you don't sign this i'm getting out your case and so let's the fraud that's a first that's because it's a fraud because the client had paid all the money that he was supposed to pay no it's a fraud because the climate paid one hundred thirty thousand dollars and at that point he's being told that he's got to pay this other amount or his lawyer is not going to continue represented in the trial but he maintains that that amount is not yes he maintains that amount is not owed he doesn't know where they came up with that amount but it's hard to  yeah that's that's his argument that's his arguments and the damages you're asking for if you could address that for a minute seem to me that you were focusing on your client's loss of the harlem property as a result it hasn't been lost yet and a receiver yes yes and and sure i mean in the end i mean is this building is worth he says around three point five million dollars my understanding now is that it's they've gone to contract for for the sale of the building at two point five million dollars in lost yet why isn't there litigation in the state courts available to raise these issues there if the if the receivership should be terminated why isn't there some kind of motion available in state court on this subject my client has decided to do pro se another motion  f i wasn't clear on exactly why what this appeal is about are you here challenging the sanctions on the ground that sanctions should not have been applied and that's the part where you stand  up in other cases there's a look at this guy he's mr you know he's been saying before don't believe anything he says you actually argued almost of the same thing was was purposely little to deter you from appealing it's not the money it's the principle of the thing though of course if the princ if you should have been sanctioned you also get the money back but that's not the point right the point is you were damaged by having been sanctioned and you think the sanction was wrongful yeah i mean ultimately this is something that i see myself as an attorney who's when i see this kind of odd things going on my goal is to is to try to bring it to the attention of one who might make a difference in who i believe and that's that is the reason i brought this to a federal federal court because you know this is it's a difficult case to to to understand you to follow the fact pattern is a very very difficult and i've actually seen a lot of these are things going on in the state supreme court i'm you know to post sanctions he pointed to your med complaint being full of allegations that were not directly pointed to your causes of action and being very extensive in other pleadings as well i  would seem really incredible incredible allegations something that you would not believe but i had to say i had to use other examples to explain how this kind of stuff can occur and in the end an abuse discussion i do consider what about giving a bad name to people that you call for our dues well you and i investigated i investigated what i consider to be fraud before i made these these comments when i  your honor how could we feel sorry for you if you call everybody else a fraud how can we exercise discretion to lift this this this name on you and you've been so liberal are you go point there you are you got a point there my only argument here is that my goal is to shed light on what is occurring in the state courts among attorneys among clerks and and quite frankly you are there's a lot of things going on seems like there's no one who's willing to take a stance on mr sanchez i think when we go ahead and hear from some started the defendants or think you and you'll have a couple minutes for a bottle right now mr dawson is what you have a preference as order were there any additional damages i was trying to look at the various damage claims to see where there's anything other than taking of the property that was putting the property to receivership that was the basis for a claim and i saw  his claims between like three million and four million dollars was there anything else other than the taking the property that is the focus of the here we don't understand there to be so the district court carefully considered that issue and found that as far as the court could tell it was only the entry of the receivership that was causing these damages and certainly as to the state believes the only thing that they are alleged to have done wrong that harmed the plaintiff was the entry of the receivership and so though that's clearly to reach those claims the court would have to review and reject the state court order which is enforcement proceedings in state court to enforce that judgment and as mr shaw and stated it is barred by worker feldman because the damages flow directly from the loss of the property directly from the enforcement proceeding and directly from the confession of judgment to address your honor's question regarding damages if i may it certainly appears to us that all of the damages involve the property one way or the other the three to four million dollar number appears to be the an estimated value of the number of the complaint also references business damages without understanding exactly what they are they may we think that they  had billy to negotiate the money was owed at that point as my understanding there's nothing in the record to the contrary and this is used to using the form of the confession judgment point two days away from the verdict that is he he wanted to get paid and i think it was his right and obligation to get paid and his right to get paid but what i also think is important is it was never challenged there are two letters in the record to leaven kaiser knowledge ing this debt afterwards and after that mr charles actually relied on the debt when he applied for c j counsel down the road there was never any claim that this money wasn't owed until the enforcement proceeding was can that was the first time anybody ever heard of the debt wasn't legitimate the debt was overbilled this is the first time that we maybe that's not a very nice thing to do there may be a claim to that effect that was not the subject of the case but there may be a claim to that effect i would wonder if it's barba the statute of limitations or a stop at this point given the letters that are in the record by which this debt was acknowledged and money was pledged to have been in kaiser a point on the rico and an important point i think there are no facts in this complaint that the facts are very thin and there's no facts connecting the alleged enterprise which just appears to be people whose interests are in people and entities interests whose interests are adverse to mr  going that's correct because as i read the complaint it i did not see an allegation that the fees were not due in owing i thought the false was the claim that if you don't sign this i'm able to walk away from the case when the argument is but that's false because he would have to apply to withdraw and the court at that stage would probably not let him withdraw and so there was a false would stated so as to get the confession of judgment it's not clear to me how any of the people who come into the case later on could be implicated in that and it's not clear to me that that would be a federal claim but if if if there were diversity of citizenship or something so that there was otherwise jurisdiction would it be barred by rupert feldman to claim that the lawyer had fraudulently extracted the confession of judgment even if the fees were doing owing by this kind of false representation that you have no choice that may be outside of feldman but i think it would be barred by statute of limitations certainly and that is the claim your honor as i understood it to be that's the only statement a legit statement in this complaint that i could find that might give rise to a fraud and i'm not even sure it's a false statement it's a statement of opinion about future fact in and i think there are issues with with that statement as well that's the only statement that i can find that would give rise and damn and damages in that case still might relate to the property because the confession of the judgment specifically pledges the property it's a judgment and it's automatically a state court  please the court i'm paul shumaker for the defendant probably going to charles she is the former wife of the plaintiff wayne charles it's very unclear what's being claimed if anything against going to charles she's thrown in as a defining she's had to hire me she's out a lot of mental anguish and expense over all this her former husband wayne charles is a multi millionaire this property is worth several million dollars and this lawyer is assisting him in a vendetta against a lot of people and obviously are mostly upset about the fact it's against his former wife i don't know without foundation the brief and it's rico discussion refers to a group group of attorneys a clerk assistant to a judge of the new york state supreme court a court appointed receiver and a financial institution unquote that's the end of the quote from page one of the several places doesn't even mention going to charles there's no attempt even to tie her to some rico enterprise it's utter hogwash and it's utterly absurd an outrageous that this should be allowed in this court did she help me out a whole she did here was petition the support the receivership application because she has a mother judgment against him yes she put in an affidavit in support of the receivership there's a some discussion about that actually that portion been paid i'll tell you right now there's another judgment that's in line to be paid but there's not that much in mind to be paid what they're looking for is going to be a few million dollars of cash mr charles is a wealthy man mr sanchez will get paid this is not a don quixote crusade this is a lawyer assisting an evil made any application for them not to separate out the case and that is where the only place i mention it is in my brief that is my purpose of being argue is that we do believe that cost john damages on cause should be awarded because this has been horrible imposition and today you hear him say well and it's not mr sandra lee says pro se mr charles is going to start a new state court proceeding this has gone on for years and you know i don't feel that sorry for lawyers are going to wait to get paid we have to wait to get paid but my client the former wife and their daughter who my client i don't want to burden his with extraneous material but my client's a nurse she works long hours to pay their daughters to wear and this man mr charles arm referring to has avoided obligations for many years and this is just part of the power thank you thank you may please the court my name is andrea roberts and i represent the defendant appellee bank of new york mellon corporation for the sake of conserving the court's time bank of new york takes the same position as the color pelleas this action is barred some of them are barred by the statute of limitations and limitations such as his fraud cause of action my client is simply named here and because it holds a mortgage income from the property that is the subject of the receivership there no allegation in the complaint as to my client specifically concerning the fraud as it was not a part of the judgment nor was it a part of the receivership order in addition appellee the appellant fails statute and so your honor at the bank of new york respectfully request that the court uphold the lower court's decision as it was properly dismissed the bank mortgage on the property correct your own if the receiver sells the property the bank will get action that's currently pending in your county so the mortgage is in default yes since two thousand and ten since march of two thousand and ten so their interest is been occurring since that it was a six hundred seventy five thousand dollars mortgage foreclosure was commenced and november fourth of two thousand and sixteen ok thank you very much mr sanchez you have three minutes