the penalties granted there are three main issues that need to be addressed i don't have sufficient time to address all three in detail so i will address them briefly they are first a violation of the federal rules of civil procedure rule sixty before the the sec's of fines clause and the abuse of discretion in ordering client and personal trading down litigants have an expectation that the rules of civil procedure will be complied with the litigants in this case of originally green to terms on a consent  that consent daughter was only agreed to under duress and threw out two months later however the plaintiff see if d c agreed to correct the consent to order by stipulating that the magistrate would decide the penalty phase they submitted that's dippy lation to the court docket one seventy four and even stated that this new stipulation was pursuant to the consent order a permanent injunction previously enter in june two thousand and seventeen early abused its discretion and violated the federal rules of civil procedure rule sixty before by deliberately interfering with the wishes of the litigants by stating that he would decide the penalty phase he thus voided the contra contract consent order by interfering and by doing so he violated both litigants rights the due process l void and this court has held that a judgment is void when the court acted in a manner consistent with the due process of law the second issue is the second is the eighth amendment violation of the excessive fines cla although that case is the similar it does argue about a forfeiture grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense just the skins for it stated protection against excessive punitive economic sanction secured by that clause is both fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty this case since there are no forfeitures dischord judgments fraud or even criminal aspects to lawfully apply them numerous courts including this one has held that the test to determine excessive fines is that the penalty imposed must be rationally related to the offense and rest with the discretion of the court seven u s c nine one states in determining the amount of monetary penalty assessed the commission shall consider the appropriateness of such a penalty to the gravity of the violation that would be deemed totally subjective and not the total discretion of the court but in numerous cases the courts found that courts should be realistic and not set a figure which is impossible for a defendant to comply with due to lack of monetary resources courts have generally continued to consider what a defendant can realistically pay this would bend towards requiring both to see if d c and the courts it here to a more objective standard in short both jim hall at the see if he see one asking for monetary penalties and hurley must assess the defense ability to pay the defendants ability to pay is to consider the defendant's net worth it seems in many cases that i read there isn't much talk of reliance on financial affidavits but in this case both to see if the c n the court were given financial affidavits which was ignored only when the eye of peace status was granted to charlie lower the c and p from sixty thousand to fifteen thousand but still vital violated the law by simply stating the defendant's financial condition was less than rosy the defense simply cannot afford to pay the fifteen thousand dollars t defendant is indigent and has expressed that numerous times to the courts lastly is the unlawful client personal training beds the personal training band was especially agreed just as hurley states the missions and request did not justify a personal training bet and then offered to extend the scheduling letter so he could simply rubber stamp a penalty that he wanted i believe this was a blatant violation of the judicial conduct and disability act of one nine hundred eighty in assisting with the prosecution this court must be presented the court must be c offered zero evidence of any of these test what has been entered into evidence is that the fun in a sleep traded futures and stop voluntarily from september two thousand and eight to december two thousand and ten when the c of the c submitted this claim there were no other violations similarly from two thousand and eight until the present there are no violations the trading bans are unlawful personal trading bans are very rare and only granted in extreme cases usually involving egregious fraud in no way does this case warrant that recording and penalty of a lifetime client  most courts don't allow non lawyers to argue at all and so we do allow proceedings to argue but our practice is to give them five minutes joining us you want to add at this point and we also have your prey's just that i would ask that you