good morning ladies and gentlemen welcome to the th circuit we're very pleased to be with you this morning we have we have four matters that were on the argument calendar that have been ordered submitted on the briefs sing versus bar versus doyle for the information of counsel if you're not familiar with our system the time showing on the clock is your total time for example mr breckon if you would like to reserve time for rebuttal then you need to monitor your own time and stop at eight minutes if you want two minutes for a bottle all right just honors i'm not the st time presenting anything in the th circuit and so i've probably managed to really screw up the whole thing what i had intended to do here was to present the four most significant to me issues i believe as and in front of the court that turned into however an eleven or twelve  page issue taishan which is more than can be read in the ten minutes that's allowed so i'm going to have to hit just the highlights of my question but what i just start with what you think is the most important issue or the most important defendant that you don't want to challenge here it's the most important issue that i started with here is the claim that the state bar of nevada is somehow a state agency  mr recht hasn't that been decided by this court i can't see where you have decided that and we did that in the he and five case involving the state state bar of california state bar of california but it wasn't but what's what's the difference in the state bar of california state bar of nevada for purposes of of that legal principle probably a whole lot of things because the state bar of california gets a lot of funding from the state's revenues the county nevada bar gets no money whatsoever from the state of nevada it gets it has currently twelve and a half one million dollars value it has collected and continues to collect seven half one million dollars plus every year all from revenues from people who are signing up to be members of the bar now so that's that's one whether the money judgment would be satisfied under state funds the answer appears to me to be no it wouldn't not with that amount of assets and and better that's a little bit better little bit better i don't want to swallow it but ok anyway the nd is the nd test is supposed to be whether the energy performs a central government function i couldn't find any central government functions that they state more of nevada does other than enrolling people who want to be in the state bar they they don't even get to decide that issue it goes instead to the supreme court to make the decision they get a record made to do a recommendation that's all the same thing with people that they don't want there anymore today they want to get rid of them for some reason whether it's bad acting or whatever it is you're not challenging the disbarment or trying to set aside that correct you know the that is correct because the state of nevada the supreme court decided that i'm disbarred that i'm not can i there's no changing bet but if that is unchallenged then how do you have standing to challenge the injury that may flow from that  it really didn't come up in terms of the state agency thing until the briefing was being done under on the reef on the opposition side in this court so i think they're wrong if there is a case that that this court has decided i didn't find anything where the mitchell tests were being  here and maybe i didn't find the right case but that was what i did not find and as a result i put these things as the forest there so there is forth five things at the top of the list that are the most important thing to be addressing i think in this case but you're kind of it approaching this from a different angle and i'm not sure what that angle actually means to me if the court is looking at the mitchell requirements and saying well this this state bar is no longer even if it did  meeting these five conditions i don't know that's something that this court i think still has to address but that's it everything here is up to you and i know that  i've gone through all five of these not yet salient to you but the entity perform some central government functions the only thing i can see is setting up who's who's passed the bar and who they think is going to be right correct only state supreme court fits into that category but the state bar is not being treated that way has never personally been treated that way and so i don't know whether the court must take another look at that or not if you do not then this issue and just put it law violations and most of them are open meeting law violations that according to the nevada open media law which there are a number of cases decided by the new nevada supreme why because that's when we go to the  i did not go back and look at those in detail i don't remember at this point and i'm seventy six years old and my memory is sometimes not as good as it should be but that's where i just didn't go back and look at good morning your honor as i represent the nevada supreme court counsel for the state bar in the individual defendants is also here anticipate that hill take up most of the time but i'm here to answer any questions that you have with regard to the nevada  essentially conceded the th amendment protects the state from suit in this case there's no real question as to the nevada supreme court status as a state entity an arm of the state there's no abrogation in in the briefing that i'm sure your honour's are aware of which is there can be a suit against individuals in the state government but here the individual justices are not named it's just an about a supreme court and in addition  there's no ongoing behavior here that could be challenged and so i would submit that the district court's decision on this issue should be affirmed on behalf of the state and about a supreme court violations i he didn't quote that language but he did reference the holding and this case and it was not mentioned in either of the red briefs it seems to establish that the district court was wrong on this point and the  i raise the question of whether there's some other ground on which you can avoid a rematch well i look at that your honor and if you look at pacman and and other cases they don't say that state law time to time in a process prosecutor cases the so there's a matter of federal law did well it recognized immunities as a matter of federal law based on that which provides for immunity participants in a judicial process in the in the judicial process that is referenced in the local district courts  us district courts rules itself local rule i haven't dash seven says that practice before the before the district court is going to be governed by our rules of  conduct and so up but how can it how can that that exempts certain state officials from liability under federal law well there does seem to be just a flat violation of the supremacy clause and let me let me give you that let me give you the harder the harder  case if we adopted the principle that you're advocating here and the judge to decide this on and what would prevent nevada from from simply adopting some kind of immunity rule for it for all it's of peace officers yeah i get your point your honor not and i think that that is the important distinction here did not add abrogate is the common law immunities which s p r when i was six simply codified they got to talk about the common law in the east rather than rather than the than the statutory immunity so what common home unities do you have for the official so so all of the participants and these all of the zoomed were to get to that yes is there anything in your briefs that talked about the common law unity we did not discuss the common law unity of certain length talked about the common law  the district court only referenced as c r when i was six that's correct your honor so therefore it seems to me that if you're even going to argue that that would be a little bit out of whack that you know to waive that well you know our brief if they want to argue common law unities takes take some evidence let's see if there are any you know your honor that's something certainly the court could do but i think it's wooden we do i think it's certainly going to be a fact question it isn't something that a guy can determine only on a question of law well the briefing in this case was difficult because we have a that and if so why i do i do think that the you have to look very carefully on appeal at what was pled in the complaint and there aren't any individual claims pl in the nd amended complaint against the individuals and that's the only instance in which the immunity argument arises is that is the claim for damages against the individuals  because they the as the court has already indicated the court's precedent on th amendment communities extends to the individuals acting in their official capacity claims against the individuals corporation which was adjudicated but before the disciplinary panel to have been a false assertion but t p i was admitted briefly  a multi year stiction a practice that had for a brief period of time responsible nevada lawyers who are licensing that out of none of them were mr brock and again it's not an appellant so in these you're suggesting that there may be valid defenses to those claims but why would that not even state article three injury so you claimed in the in your join you're in the motion is dismiss the the major reason why wouldn't it's not pled we have to look very carefully at what mr brecht pled versus what he's argued on appeal he never pled a claim against the individuals he mentions individuals in the complaint but  he doesn't he doesn't make a any kind of approach a prime aphasia argument of the damages kind against any of those individuals there are three claims in the complaint and time permitting i could go through them but none of them state a claim no state of mind no damages relating to the individual's actions nothing like that he simply says these individual has he has listed the individuals and named them in their individual capacity he has he has listed them he has said they're named in their individual capacity has not pled any claim against them in any of the three claims in the if for in the nd amended complaint which is the authors of argument i mean because they're they're named he says there is individual capacity and in the county actually references names of persons in the counts as they're pleaded he does and none of those counts stayed an injury  constitution or federal law against mr brack that is the responsibility of any of the of any of those individuals it simply says what they do and what their role was that's that's it in the identifying result there of and as a result of that as a result there of he gets standing because he has some injury what did he need to say more than he did say because he's saying this guy did this that made it so that my define my corporation went defunct this guy did this that made it so my corporation went defunct and i'm injured i make anomic lee injured thereby what more does he need to say he needs eighty three issues the right thing right it's in it's in nevada issue now under the brown case the this court has recognized that the regulation of the bar and discipline of the bars  is a state function what mr brecht did here is he is he started out to try to get around the district court's application of the ricker feldman doctrine by pleading  claims against individuals sort of mentioning individuals and then and sort of sort of wave that around over here but what he's really done on appeal then is gone back and done what he would have been barred by ricker feldman from have having done in the district court and the tried to attack it's the process that's that's the that's the overarching context that we have to to place this case  if if we go back and we look at the st amended and then the nd amended complaint i think you'll find that there's more detail there than what council has been relating to and we go to the st amended complaint when you've amended if amended you probably don't have to because the nd then who was supposed to be filling in the gaps that existed on the st complaint so i mean that that should be the nd one you're looking at so art so in a nd amended complaint are you suing on behalf of yourself as an individual as a corporation yes i know that i don't have standing to sue to be soon on behalf of the corporation if the state bar was dealing with the state bar dealing with you personally it was a dealing with your with your law firm everything that the state bar did against jimmy was and to me to get me out of being able to help the people that are facing foreclosures and and that we were doing very successful we had sixty cases filed and they didn't win all those cases most of them got removed to federal court and dismissed on football teams and weren't a member since you were for i submitted at that point to the jurisdiction of the state bar right that's part of the bar can't discipline you because you're not a member of the bar no they they just decided to kill the entire thing violated when you brought your ninety three suit you brought it only on your own behalf as an individual and not on behalf of your firm it was me they put out of business and by putting me out of business i did taking away everything pretty much stock that killed everything if nothing else but the damages don't have to be huge quite frankly if i am fortunate enough to be able to get back into the district court produce the evidence that i know exists because i spent years putting it all together but and it's mostly setting in and reno and i and a big one of those places where you you store things so a story told but i mean the documents are there and we had sixty out of something like one hundred and twenty cases that were we had taken and twos t p i roughly sixty of those were filed and  state court removed to federal court dismissed in federal court incorrectly but by then our friend patrick king had scared all of the attorneys from ever talking to read i think we're sort of