before the court is whether or not the bankruptcy court had said i'm sorry the just or court had subject matter jurisdiction of this complaint was filed under forty two nineteen eighty three forty two u s c nine that these people did anything wrong or indeed i know you you were in your prime being a lawyer but where is the allegation made it with definite that is other than the conclusion in other words where is the allegations evidence that they did something wrong well these are your on of the the evidence is that i when they allege is that i had the lowest score provided to me of any attorney on the bars three times in a row and that while they said that i had received the lowest score self taking into consideration that the purpose of an exam is to determine the minimum level of competence and have already been made in practicing law for twenty three years and that there are enough of you know you're not in bad company so i don't i don't see that we can glean a fact from that you were in good standing impression lerner and other jurisdictions that this shows that you are me and that you any gain i became an officer of the court the actions that i filed representing numerous attorneys through out this two up united states and numerous courts there was are well aware of these actions and they're well aware of that they did not want rest of prosody which i was able to get senator to sponsor and have voted into law in california for reciprocity enacted by the legislature delegating to the california supreme court it was the duty to appoint a commission and to implement reciprocity and the result was that nobody got reciprocity there are fully aware of who i am they are fully to their vested interest they're telling me that they wanted me to sue them while before i even took the bar exam they told me i want to sue them i said that any complaint under under oath and it's must be construed as true it is they ha have branded me public enemy number one for years and years and years because of what i believe which is with that consistent with what the american bar association believes that the model rule for admission on motion should be adopted throughout the united states thirty five states have adopted that rule essentially there's not a paradigm change in admission protocol the a b a held here i was all throughout the united states out you guys are you certainly got your what you wanted to say heard knew how they were the problem here is that you're asking for damages from the state of give a recommendation to the state supreme court of california yes you can if you're denied admission you have to petition for review the saver california you know not since junior is a community of bar examiners in one thousand eighty eight because we already held that right so my question is you since you haven't petitioned the state of california supreme court and haven't been denied admission by the supreme same thing you know i file for bankruptcy i want a fresh start i can't get a fresh start there will never let me know your honor they will never let me up i try i've done everything i possibly can and they say we don't want your views here go someplace else good morning tracy mccormick the court especially stated there should be no shame in a failure to pass a bar exam in california very difficult expand its law known across the united states as being one of the most difficult parts dance there is and still mr genie should not feel ashamed that he failed to pass the parks and no one said that the issue here is one of subject matter jurisdiction as the court correctly noted mr genie did not petition the california supreme court and as a result there's been no denial no deprivation i think he's deprived of his first amendment rights so that there was retaliation by the state bar employees to  down to jury rig the bar exam to under under great i think he said he has his exam and the purpose was to kill his first amendment right to speak on this reciprocity issue i didn't see the state bar addressing th cheney goes back to cheney where the state supreme court has to have an opportunity to first look at these issues that's for deprivation from admission to the bar he's talking about first amendment chilling his first and that rights well i think you can't really separate those out you can't have one without the other because you can't and analytically separate the two what you have is his complaint for retaliation if he hasn't been denied access to the bar and what does he care what the the result of his bar exam score was it's the cases where i don't think so because it's so intertwined with the issue of whether he's passed or there's no injury there's nothing that he has as damaged or harm it's not a cause of action if there's been no harm as  just believe that based on the way he's laid it out and the lack of harm that legally attaches to you can have no injury if there's been no deprivation and so he if he has no harm you can't take a cause of action first of all and it actually does go back to cheney once again the california supreme court is has the unique authority over attorney admissions in california and this issue as he's alleged it is so closely related to that very important state interest record in this case besides the complaint you know that the court says  there's never been one case where they've reviewed hedges cision of the committee of large numbers to deny certification to a now the state attorney and the history over they have reviewed examinations by applicants and on the issue of whether the state bar examiners were fair or reasonable and prejudiced in grading examination questions you resent that  i can think of any cited cases your honor but not a day i was before i took the bar just in case but my my contention is i've once before after i filed in a federal court the federal court said go to the california supreme court first for review and i filed for review in the california supreme court an ok just not in this case in another case and they said no we're not going to grant your review