in the state courts it's an extremely unusual case because there is no precedent for most of the allegations that i'm making because there are very few corruption cases completely reversed in the allegations that were made between the parties and what i'm saying is that when considering what the actual facts were it is clear that if you are the corruption the adequate pend could rescind the contract although the seem to agree the contract applied and therefore the so is your position that under the contract you own the car you couldn't get the contract rescinded in order to return the car get your money back that plea is all right so that you went in owning the car and you came out owning the car because the state court could not decide first lee said lee yes that was my that was my position that's what position it was at the state judge's position as you understand it i can't say what the state judge position have to be put put in the position of reverse of a ruling on a particular finding by the state court and there was no specific finding of that ownership one way or the other and therefore since we're not we would not be over it simply said when where someone in response to your question that you raise concerning whether there is whether justice corner i should have recused herself we say that well at the outset you reserve two minutes for a bottle so  the car was as mr steinberg said at all times his until it was a subject of an auction pursuant by the sheriff's marshal's pursuant to execution of the judgment that we the other is simply to look at the underlying causes of action that mr steinberg purported to bring before the federal court as to our defendants the hobbs act the civil rights laws a variety of constitutional provisions all of them pete only do not apply to individual defendants they either require color of law state actor use of force none of which even in issue of ownership and if not is a covered by her film but if the state court did not determine ownership i believe it's covered by record film and because it is a necessary process as a result of the state court judgment and it's based on the state court proceeding to the extent that mr steinberg had a person wants to claim that the auction was not properly followed according to the new york c again we were very careful and had it done by the sheriff's office that as a action he could have brought under article seventy eight or other process in new york state but chose not to do so that does not bring up a federal question over the argument is that  decide whether exercise supplemental jurisdiction i would assume you don't want to remap why not well first of all to be supplemental jurisdiction has to be supplemental to something and there's nothing that applies to us right and i could be three hun to threaten one thousand and eighty three for violation of a federal statute so federal jurisdiction but you have to be a state actor for those to apply or act under color of law or use threat or violence to effect under hobbs act a state court remedy even mr steinberg as an alleged we are any or did any of those so to say as hypothetical federal jurisdiction and then create a state court supplemental jurisdiction based on a nonexistent is that will just addiction is i think taken one too far just in a district court free when faced with federal and state claims to consider the state claim after dismissing the federal claim normally they don't very often they were men who they they say that this is we're not going to x exercise any pending jurisdiction but they can can't i i would think that my position honors that's unconstitutional but unless there is a valid state court a valid either diversity or believe they in order to in order to decide it as a matter of judicial efficiency i would think that would be a subject challenge for lack of state of a federal jurisdiction the constitution and full faith and credit act and so on have made it clear that only the supreme court has jurisdiction over state matters that there is client directly and not to the governor but it's good you have any way that suggests or is there any way that you would argue to us that suggests that the district court essentially up i think the this district court followed the the precedent in the southern district on its interpretation of record film and as the lack of a fraud exception and a broader scope than this court has in some of its decisions action was brought against the governor in his official capacity and that the action against the governor as a whole was barred by sovereign immunity before the court ever got to the question of rooker felt so no matter what the court decides on the record question the action against the governor falls with respect to the claims against the governor that we would we would note that record feldman would apply because he  the plaintiff is complaining about what the court did whether or not the ultimate question of ownership is resolved certainly with respect to the governor there were adverse ruling against  the plaintiffs particularly the sanctions order that the plaintiff is complaining about and under those the record feldman bar would independently apply to some of the claims but as i say the action against the governor's a whole is barred by sovereign immunity unless the court has any questions on that we would simply ask that you affirm the dismissal as to the governor