let's let's address that have you made any complaint of any nature to any authorities above well the judicial inquiry board because that's the only one if not there with fabrication to provide a rationale that would withstand examination by the supreme court as to whether it was going to grant leave to appeal but you went on then to say that it must have been for you clerk so you're saying you did look in the record precisely i looked at that record from page where did you look at the record after the decision no no what you're saying defiantly if the issue came up after your brief was final in the decision and that's when the either fabrication corruption or forgery occurred is there some reason that you should look there to their fine your fine and good thinkers anyone living suggestion there is such an order you know there's no such order but you use the word force that means making up a document designed well you know when cheney legally how did they do this i'm not saying that there ever was a paper order in a file supporting this recitation by the third district i'm familiar with all that happened in the circuit wrong and i think that was your first thought they didn't they did not grant the p f far and the supreme court did not grant leave to appeal the third district judges denied you feel that you're a petition for your hearing isn't a substantial evidence that they didn't make a mistake if if the accountant steals from a corporation comes out with a financial statement saying this sufficient then this is an easy decision but if you do find them sufficient then that removes the panel as being in answer to me that's entitle to any credibility when they say well we're not  what could a trial judge do to determine or or give you some remedy from that decision look at the trial i don't want to except at the twilight of my career the corruption on the part of the appeal court is beyond the reach of the circuit court if they were charged with any other crime with abuse driving too fast or beating their spouse or stealing money or falsifying records the initial criminal charge would be filed in the circuit court circuit judges without question would have the jurisdiction and the into and you do understand that your allegation of criminal conduct is not binding in order to get as you see the relief you're looking for i from then to answer your question justice in cases where courts have exercised the power the relief granted has taken several forms setting aside the judgment to permit a new trial altering the terms of the judgment or restraining the beneficiaries of the judgment from taking any benefit whatsoever from it but what are the form the relief has taken in particular cases the net result in every case has been the when it's needed and this is who phonied but when it's news of course figure out a way to get it done and that's what i'm asking you to do is it is union and if you don't like saying the circuit court can do it if there is some other way find the count three which actually dismissed with prejudice against that we are also guilty of misconduct but if you find it was dismissed with prejudice that would be different but even the state excuse me the attorney general says eight am a criminal or an executive branch officer why why should are you asking us to do that when you have those remedies available to disagree with your  state's attorney wants to go after the judge so in this situation i do without hesitation have charged the wrong b when you know i'm driving very successfully so for all right i'm driving the charging vehicle through the court system and not leaving to others the situation sort of like there is no state's attorney no judicial inquiry board no other entity the you know has the power to this order why are you making the allegations against the judges that's the basis for the relief that's what makes this case what justice what i call one of those few that are manifestly unconscionable counts and you do know that there  always are i assume that you know that there is a way to attack an appellate court decision in subsequent proceedings and you have not done that you have made charges that we can't and you are asking us to do it in somehow do some ad hoc litigation of that and get your case back on course there is a way you can do it and you have not done it i for anybody i have to there is a way in what you've done is you have made allegations that you're not willing to pursue him be correct manner and you put this court in a rather untenable position that we can do what maybe you're asking us to do because you haven't done it the right way what do you want us to do in your time is up so this will be the last answer pl ok so assuming for a moment that you're correct then the relief that you would be granted here would be to reverse judge do because he sent it back there for a hearing as to whether or not to to make such a declaration either under its inherent authority over its own records or under the court records restoration act the act only provides a mechanism for the trial court to restore physically lost to destroy damaged altered records to files it doesn't have the authority to manufacture a conflict with an appellate court order in order to provide a basis for a collateral attack on matter if there was an order for it in i know we've had discussion about that but if there is  if you know what there was one it certainly is going to be there now so it could be a court restoration act get they have order that misled misinformed or was fraudulent a of corruption the plaintiff raised in her section two dash fourteen zero one petition were ones that she previously raised to the appellate court and she had the opportunity to raise them to the supreme court in her attempt to appeal to the supreme court but she chose not to do the supreme court could have reviewed these allegations of corruption as a matter of right if claimed it had presented them because plaintiff is making the claim now that she was did her constitutional right to an effective appeal based on action which originated for the first time in the appellate court if that was the case why not file any petition for leave to appeal to the supreme court as a right plaintive chose not to pursue that remedy so she can now come back to the trial court a lower court and attempt to before an attempt to gain relieved that she didn't seek through the established appellate process of fact that would actually support her speculation that there was corruption on the part of the justices the petition was not timely made to the extent that claim it was attempting to overturn the trial court orders that had been previously a addressed by all of the parties including my clients in briefing to a trial court and i believe in my briefs at pages twelve to thirteen i actually have record cites for all the places that we did make arguments going to the legal sufficiency so was before the result of the two fifty two six nineteen distinction because these issues where argued by all parties before the trial or i see that my time is up if i may just one party third was an alternative claim saying if i don't get the real relief i really want which is to reopen the case then i want to do damages from the justice for the value of my wrongful death action and further trying to was also in delhi because it was suspect pleading standards there were never any specific allegations of corruption or tampering it was just speculation he was never a witness or any sort of evidence that there was any sort of communications between the trucking defendants in the justice is there's that there isn't money to change hands anything that you would typically think in a judicial corruption case also as a sort of pointed out you would think if you really thought that there was corruption here you would have gone prosecutors because you know the u s attorney in the state is obviously very that has nothing to do with corruption it made consider it think it was still correct and ninth for that case this even if it's wrong but if it thinks honestly that it was right that's not corruption and then also he's really saying  the results are going to be the same and it's a rule twenty three order which is not presidential so there'd be no point in junior to trade you know so there's all sorts of options as to why rather than doing the smoking gun the petition protects tonight there's all sorts of perfectly legitimate reason justice system it's moved a lot what can we do to that earlier twenty three from the third district i don't think that you can do anything at this point certainly not in you to believe that he's a risk or they to ask if there's evidence of corruption then you should turn it over to the judicial inquiry board and to the prosecutors and i would think that if it hypothetically some justice were convicted of public corruption  two thousand some of the worst dismissing certain parts of the case and when one of the image does and that because of the back that shows corruption and we just don't think that's anywhere near close enough to what you allege before to make the does not reach the merits of the motion to dismiss he couldn't be more specific about that but then doesn't he go want to say when discussing the issue of the allegations that he did not see any set of facts that could be planned concerning these these out these judges in these allegations i don't recall if my or my recollection is when i asked him for leave to a bit or said ok if i did  judge do big teeth though he was not included in your complaint correct correct but i i thought i heard you refer to him a short time ago as being included in this broad description of judicial corruption you branch needs the respect of the citizenry in order to be effective you have the army of the food we've got to respect the course in their decisions in order to make a function haven't you ever been disappointed with the court's ruling prior to this time in your career you've had a long career at his of course i have yes but if i could just finish one second of what i'm saying is we were all committed to maintain this standard in the through the credibility of the integrity of the court system  unusual situation like this comes along seems like one of two things has to happen you the court has to say walker this is wrong here's here's there were dismissing the counts and we here by hold you in contempt for making these unfounded allegations against us or somebody says who would you would you sign off on the situation or an opinion said counselor dismissed counsel comes in and said no calls were about the fact that they are deliberations and how they deliberate cases are confidential yes i didn't imply that they had to be read but why wouldn't they  what the supreme court has said about that but listen to what the attorney general's office just arguing to you here it could be the judge who said well we were on factual row but we'll just let it stay there because after