final case for today it is now afternoon is colossal ski against santa all of her and others mr and my side the story is considerably different i'm here not asking this court to grant me the bourse rather i'm here and asking this court to grant me an impartial judge there is no reason why a judge should be using their road to conceal their efforts in the wrong doing no your honor that's that's not correct my case has been a rife with inequity and one of those inequities had cars and i judge a new judge was assigned to your case some point that's true your honor but it was it was before because judge harris was for reasons i don't fully understand but i believe he was pressured to recuse himself and it's most odd that a judge would recuse himself after having heard the case for two years if there was a conflict they are going to say and mister i thought your whole the whole premise of your case was that you wanted a fair judge for your divorce and you were afraid you were getting one you got a new judge you're asking in this case for extraordinary acts by federal courts to step in and interfere with the management of state courts i don't know that we could never do that but if you've got a new judge what's the  problem for one the first judge should not have been forced to recuse himself over this case and number two we do have a new judge and no sooner do we have a new judge and that judge just carried out by court receiving correspondence from up to from the presiding judge i'm not sure why the i'm looking at page five of the order of april twenty eighth the one that you know was before you filed but of course we're here into novo review but she says for the foregoing reasons quote his complaint is just missed without prejudice and his motions for injunctive relie door isn't wide open to do something else in the district court we don't have a final judgment your honor if judge colonel wanted to hear more she could have just waited for a couple days for a response pretty well she ordered us to provide she says you can come back and you did file the response a few days later and i'm just i guess where you want way of putting this is would you be willing to stipulate to the conversion of this to a just it and again if we did have jurisdiction the first thing i would have said is i understand what happened with the timing i'm sure was very frustrating but at this stage of the game if this court has jurisdiction our review of this type of so you have said what you want to say in your brief we are aware of of the various points that you're making so i'm not sure that this is the time to worry about that but but my bigger problem is if judge kendal l basically is saying based on what i have before me right now i don't see anything to this case judge hamilton said there's some very serious issues about several court interference with state court management there are appellate courts in the state system so if somebody has a judge who's biased or if a judge makes mistakes the state appellate courts are available to hear arguments your honor the state court in particular the domestic relations  everything i went to law school for us but turned on its head i don't to be a good lawyer no i just have to go to the back door i can get a judge to lobby for me it's preposterous it's ridiculous and yet yes your honor i respectfully ask this court to take intention of that we should not have to the state here protecting these people we should have the state investigated i mean how could how could the presiding judge send a letter into my divorce to actually my divorce judge alone i'd like to see my son i have not seen my son in one thousand months and no i'm not asking to correct that your honor but when we get the illinois rendered decision saying this is inexcusable the some of the kind of things happen in the worst case it all stems from this culture that clock culture that's going on that my judge he's an associate judge he can't render a proper decision without fear  wanted to reprimand my attorney in some way we have erred you see we have plenty of shit maybe could learn something but no she's going to do a drive by through mind the worst case why did she had to do that to me for i want to see my son i don't want to think of an up ruling went against me on it and judge against  here i have a piece of paper from judge particular what in god's name possessed her to do this i don't even know this woman for god's sake i'll tell you judge why she's doing this because she's protecting a five hundred dollar an hour job it's called a guardian ad litum if you're going to get a divorce in county and if you're a man of some kind of a means you're going to have a guardian ad litum appointed for five hundred dollars an hour who's more likely than not been a long time a lobbyist a long time practitioner in that courtroom it's incestuous relationship it's hey stick it to this guy here he doesn't need to see his kid with the illinois poll court saying hey this is inexcusable what's happening here i just didn't get released from statesville your honor i am an attorney i've been attorney for twenty six years for god's sake i deserve to see my son my son d to have a father and because a judge declared in the culture of corruption it's well the rule of law down there there's no sense to have an attorney let's just hire a judge lobbyist and get her to kind of lobby in there that will take care of things yeah that's ridiculous i don't know these people why are they doing this to me i can't answer that but we will let you get a little bit of rebuttal after the other side  that this court does not have jurisdiction in this case although we understood the judge's ruling to be a little differently than the first looked at this case because although she did say it was without prejudice she also says she also entered a rule fifty eight judgment and the docket entry says that the case is terminated we believe that she indicated that she had done all that that she was planning to do in this case and we understood her saying that statement about if in the future to be addressing his concern that there was something going on and that if in the future some new facts around here so yes or some new circumstances where there really was evidence of of some kind of unfairness going on that  type of judicial role and was doing it ministry of things so it does seem to me that perhaps maintaining the guardian ad litum list is an administrative job of the presiding judge not a judicial job your honor we are assuming that there is distinction we also believe that the domestic relations exception applies here i don't understand that are you but i've got to tell you what the plaintiff is asking us to do would be troubling whether we were talking about divorce cases  or contract cases or tort cases right i don't see anything that's unique about the divorce or the content of the particular proceedings in state court and he's also said he's not asking us to rule on the divorce proceeding per se or the child custody proceeding he would like punitive relief damages injunctions you know what you're about just to run a proper system but to evaluate his claim you've got to look at examine precisely what was said to the court and you've got to look at the court's response to this you got to look at the court's rulings same thing is true in marshall against marshall at the probate level i mean you know there were forbidden you know altogether from looking at what the state courts of john know but this is going to this is going to involve that involve more of an investigation into what the court is doing and it's going to invalidate the proceedings it's not something that's going to operation gray lord shouldn't have happened there was a rather deep dive into what was going on in the circuit court of cook county in the criminal side well there are there are some special circumstances when you have a conspiracy that  the whole that sort of thing might escape the domestic license and probably exception and he says a little bit about that he suggests that there's this culture of back hallways and so on but he's not really making that kind of argument here he's really saying that there are two particular judges who for personal reasons did things to harm him and that the county defendants conspired to help one of those judges do that but he's not he's not he hasn't pleaded facts that suggest that there really is an environment of corruption but he thinks he has for sure and taking the facts as he's played at them that bigger question is you know when are these judges acting in judicial capacity what if they don that might trigger some kind of one nine hundred eighty three right you have to have an underlying violation of some right or all right ok got that there are essentially three things the judges did judge  barker he's accusing of damaging his reputation by posting the photo in the courtroom right and i'm sending a letter to the sheriff's office and also submitting a copy of a letter she sent to the sheriff to the  things we see as they are they are all intended to protect the safety and security of in the case of the photo in the letter to the sheriff to her own courtroom and in the case of the letter that she's made to the divorce judge to share information with so that he could ensure the security of his courtroom and that is directly related to what both judges have to do in the course of their job is hiring employees right and hiring because it involves discretion in the handling of particular cases and the handling of particular individuals involved in those cases and  usa and to the attorney general asking them to investigate a particular person who had been going to get before her and now she felt was stopping her and she felt that this was going to cause problems  in future things and that court said that that was part of her judicial responsibilities because it was something that she had to do to ensure that th case we see her as doing two things here she was she was in forcing the rules on ex parte communications with respect to a particular case and she also as she expressed it saw in her letters said that she was essentially seeking that she exercised her administrative authority to rule upon a pending motion which was to remove that guardian ad litum in that particular case ok i mean you're you're way over time good afternoon may it please the court the district court probably concluded that mr quasi played himself out of course by pleading facts that established  impenetrable defense of the county defendants mr coe all skee has said twenty nine times in the district court and fifteen times in his brief in this court and then it's sixteenth time in the oral argument that his concern is because to some violation of his ability to receive an impartial judge what he has failed to do in the district court and here is to establish the nexus between that claim and the alleged conduct of the county defendants and the failure to do so is fatal to his claim and therefore we've asked this court respectfully to any support for the proposition that he has the property interest and an id card that would allow him to bypass security in the data center so that claim fails as a matter security as so many other litigants and in fact as up the former president united states had this morning for jury duty right correct so that claim fails a matter of law and a matter of fact patterson and apart from the merits what's your response to the sicko os his position that he didn't get an opportunity to respond to your motion to dismiss yet the your honor the response is that his response district court for the reasons i just articulated which is that the response of grief itself eighteen times says hit the crux of his concern is getting an impartial judge and he has failed to establish the nexus between the claim of want to get impartial judge and any alleged conduct by the county defendants and that nexus was fatal it was fatal in kids is two complaints that combined had two hundred sixty five paragraphs of allegations and it was fatal when the district court held a hearing on march fourteenth and again on april sixth in articulated her concerns about exercising federal jurisdiction over a state court divorce proceeding but you know it is quite irregular for the district court to set a schedule and then pull the plug on somebody else right to respond by suddenly issuing what we're now being told is a final merit dr that that is a regular unfortunate it is a regular up perhaps even unfortunate but it does not preclude this court from affirming the difficult work on the merits again because when you look at the response brief it does may be different that's right that he he has two claims against the county and it's one we just discussed which is which is the id and he concedes that he still has access to the courthouse he merely has to go through security the second is the  our response to the subpoena as he phrases it in in his complaint at the paragraph one awaiting the original complaint and one twenty seven in the minute complaint he says that we failed and refused to comply with the in paragraph ninety in ninety three of the original complaint in ninety two and ninety five of the amended complaint he concedes we did in fact comply with the subpoena we turned over the letter the judge  that we did in fact comply with the subpoena and there is simply no procedural mechanism that would allow the state court litigant in the trial court to appeal a discovery ruling to a quasi respectfully i have to disagree judge declare was not a foreseen any rules of x party anything because she was my judge could send her a letter every morning and still would be ex partly because she's not my judge for godsake she's nobody's judge she doesn't have a courtroom she role is amid a strait of why she needed to vent at least last shot of my attorney is simply beyond me there's nothing pending before her but why did she want to do this because there is corruption in the courthouse it's so deeply ingrained over there that the guardian litum za such a lucrative position to have that he walks on water he's the courts witness but he's not the court's witness he's actually affect a friend of the court he's basically an employee of the court and so she'll do anything to protect this man he arson and for her to do a discussion for her but that's not his role he's not a court employee she can't protect him in this way by driving through my the worst case and let her feelings be known it's wrong and i'm sorry i am an you wouldn't be eligible for an attorney card now if you were in five and a half months that's different and then i'm trying to understand whether you've been harmed by anything opinion rendered by the illinois appellate court and the word that stuck out is inexcusable it's inexcusable what's happenin in this court it's very strong language from an appellate panel and yes i know i do believe that i can harm we should not to all participants we will now be in