the plaintiff standing with relating to the driving record claims the second topic is the constitutionally protected liberty and property interests point of cited accurate driving records i don't know only list judgments from convictions as directed by indiana law so i have a question for you this ordinance of the city section eight dash two takes the short route right if it incorporates by citation all these indiana traffic laws suppose instead of incorporating by citation somebody you know who is good with computers had just done a drag it cut and paste and just paste it into the carmel ordinance of the language all of the relevant indiana laws at that point it would all be right there why wouldn't that be fine in that situation if the actual language in the wall was there i think that would be a slight problem in that you would have three hundred different statutes listed but i think in that situation some statutes are long in that situation there would be a language in the actual statute that someone could look at and say oh there's what i did wrong and so why do you sent really tough escapes there is the citation the traffic tickets themselves don't just say that you violated eight dash two they say you were speeding or you improperly passed on the left or were never it is that people did i don't see any federal constitutional interest in the way carmel indiana decided to inform people of their traffic violation so there's a couple problems with sixteen different statutes that that could actually be the plaintiffs haven't contested that they've violated anything they paid their fines they didn't take an appeal how are we supposed to react to this well it in terms of that your honor you have to react to it as paying the fine being just what the statute says there's lots of reasons people can pay out fine you can pay a fine just because you don't want to have to go to court it's all in the law if you don't object in some understandable way to an adverse adjudication then that's taken to be the end of the discussion you know i awaited the thing that you didn't object to  no your honor i disagree with that for the following reasons first of all we're not trying to overturn the actual conviction so i can assure you keep saying that that all of your relief this really concerns me everything you're asking for just  about depends on the underlying conviction of being wrong it's wrong because there's no due process you say because you don't know exactly the behavior you engaged in that violated the law you're saying that it's  well there's nothing to expunge if you aren't contesting the underlying violation we want the records three flecked the actual judgment that was entered in this case the actual judgment can't be anything more than the language in the order it's as a matter of  how could you possibly report something that wasn't in the statute or the ordinance but it is in the statute by reference your honor are you telling me that no indiana statute refers by citation to any other indiana statute be that case but in that situation there would actually be a way to identify that pinpoint statute that wouldn't be identifying three hundred statutes but you have to go spelunking into to find out what you did wrong or what kind of ticket tells you what you did wrong you guys didn't even want the tickets in there but in this situation the ticket didn't tell you precisely what you did wrong because there's nothing in that ordinance that identifies any element of the claim against you you know when you're talking about speeding for example there are forty three different statutes that referenced that when you're talking about turning your sixteen different statutes referencing that why didn't they object that why didn't they take an appeal after they were because actually it turns on who does take an appeal gets relief in the indiana courts but he doesn't take an appeal based on the constitutional issue it doesn't matter he argues that this carmel ordinance exceeds the boundaries that indiana's home rule laws imposed the indiana court of appeals says yup you're right this is not correct and he obtains relief that way right in thin terms of their is that the state has not established a proper set of procedures then it's relevant to look at the procedures the state makes available to you right but in this situation we're not just we're not focusing on the fact that they didn't identify the procedures we're talking about we specifically alleged in this case that the way it was handled and the procedures addressed in this particular court as a practical matter took away some of the appellate problems in this situation they had specific procedures and policies within the court so that you couldn't affectively question the constitutional nature of the claims against you because then if you did they just changed it to a state claim it just seems like a frivolous constitutional claim to me to be honest because of the fact that this is really just an intramural indiana thing about whether it's in the state law or the the local law actually you're on a bike strongly disagree we do not cl that this is a state law based elation this is a constitutional violation with specifically protect i'm saying that traffic violations had the traffic violations been enforced by indiana state troopers then i don't think you would have had anything to say your honor you're correct if it was handled in a constitutional matter and some but it would have been the same laws and the same tickets and the same everything just wouldn't been written by carmel police officer no your honor in this situation there is no state law identified on the ticket there is no state law identified that identify specific elements of a claim that you can defend against there's nothing on there there is no conduct there's no conduct being prohibited and there is no claim we can't have a situation where the courts or the police are allowed to ticket you for something without a specific law that's basic due process so maybe you need to back off and talk a little bit about ricker feldman ok because sound very concerned that it powers our authority over a great deal of your case maybe not everything but a lot of it and your honor so it so happens the abstract claims is as the just report called them the claims about the records that get sent over to the department of motor vehicles and they rest on the notion that there's been a conviction even if there is a problem with the conviction record feldman says that your avenue to address those kinds of problems i state courts federal courts don't have appellate jurisdiction over state court judgements if you are looking to overturn the state court judgement i would agree but you don't want them recorded in the department or bureau of motor vehicles and it was convicted of con i don't even know what you mean by conduct to conduct is you can't do this or you must write that you have to drive at fifty five miles an hour i'm sure highway and here's the problem your honor fifty five miles an hour was not in the law that is at the issue it was not that specific law which ever of the forty three different statutes that reference speeding was not there we specifically read see this is you're confusing i vagueness challenge to the convictions which the indiana courts are competent to adjudicate to and you're confusing that with the idea that you have somehow an independent claim all you're telling me is that you have your clients believe to be a solid reason for attacking these convictions but the right place to do that is not in of several court your honor in this situation we are attacking with  regard to the prejudgment claim i'm talking about the abstract claims right now ok the abstract claims our position is if you're going to report them you have to actually report them based on what the law that you would so that's a state law issue thing happens in the state courts the adjudication of violations maybe shouldn't have happened maybe the law was vague maybe it should have had the whole thing in there there are a lot of things that you could say that adjudication happened in state court that event is now going to be recorded by the bureau of motor vehicles and you don't want it to be recorded because you think there's a problem with the way the event occurred no your honor we believe that the reporting is the problem not the of that the reporting but there's no discretion about that there's an adjudication and they need to make a record of that right and if they're going to make a record it should actually be reflecting the end you're saying they can make a record only of adjudications that you think are valid but you're asking the federal court do an end run and assess the validity you know your honor you are you need to make a record of the actual judgment that was that is the only discretion that the court has they can't make a record of something that wasn't in the actual judgment in this situation the judgment isn't a dash to judgment and that's it in this situation when you're talking about the abstract no one was convicted of anything that involves conduct and yet the abstracts are reporting specific conduct that isn't referenced in any way shape or form in the actual law that they were convicted  case and i think the distinction that that the opponents try to make between the record and the conviction is is a false distinction indiana code nine thirty thirteen zero point five describes what these records are and these records are certified records of conviction and so any attempt so does it doesn't distinguish between an eight to conviction and a conviction under some other state or local indiana law is for either a state law or a local ordinance that certified record is is the same kind of certified record that gets sent and so and that is true are these traffic court courts of record they are not no so in this case the challenge that he's making is a challenge to the underlying judgment and record feldman plainly applies here and this is the case just as addressed in the supreme court in saudi basic this is a case where a state court losers complaining about the results and the injuries caused by a state court judgment asking the federal courts to but those are just missiles without prejudice because as far as the federal court is concerned if there is some remedy still available under state law it's fine with the federal court for the parties to pursue that remedy we have nothing to say about it's a matter prejudice would probably be regarded by an indiana state court as claimed reclusive on the matter addressed whereas a dismissal without prejudice would not be so it could make a difference to the plaint it in a small just in as much as the judgment would preclude it it would probably be an error but here i think the district court properly dismissed subject matter stiction over this case be what's clear what's clear again is that the plaintiffs are seeking to overturn their state court judge and the district court also properly found now they keep saying over and over again that they're not doing that they are there where that record feldman is a problem clearly and they keep saying no no we don't want to overturn the state court judgments we just you know maybe don't want to record it in the bureau of motor vehicles or we don't want  other consequences i think and i think the language of saudi basic is instructive here because we're saudi basically says is that the losers are complaining of the injuries caused by the state court judgment and so  injuries in this case you know as much as they claimed a specific injury the injuries in this claim case are because of the fact of their judgment increase and in a premium would be because in an insured premium would be because of the fact of the judgment points on the license etc yes and that depends on the facts of the judgment and so in this case whether it's whether it's through standing or whether it's through  her film and there is no relief that it's been sought that can be granted without effectively invalidating these convictions also in your honor lou this there is no claim that they've advanced in this case that could not have been made on appeal of those judgment if they had chosen to do so with respect to what are we to make of that i mean these judgments are sitting there they're traffic court adjudications it looks site and nobody in the  judgments because you know judge bang simpson kept saying you've got to work a film a problem here you've got a river problem the problem is you know no we're just talking about the prejudgment so anything that would include any claim to the effect that we don't understand but section eight to argument in favor of this claim and so i don't have to deal with a but i confess that if there's no jurisdiction we can't say oh what the heck you know let's do it on the merits and i would say that there's not a lot of concern in this case about whether it's with  if they're saying there was no judgment and second one of the allegations there is not a single allegation about any of the so called prejudgment activities that is tied to the conduct of any defendant every one of them is a generic defendant's good conclusion of law until after correct the pleading has survived to twelve the six motion or you know something of the sort and so people are sometimes they say on information that lee you know sometimes they i mean is that really what they're saying discovery will show you know we have done enough investigation to believe that the following facts are going to be i don't think that would you just said is in those complaints and this is the four shot they had i don't think there's anything there that we've done enough investigation or destroy every one of them says it a believe reasonably believe we thank you know basically you know the federal courts you know pursuit of private special counsel statute where you've got a problem let's see here to report terms looks like discovery will find something i mean if they if this complain bring something in you have to have done what's available sometimes of course you need information that's on that's in the possession of the other side and you think you do that that you have to work around it but you do what investigation is reasonable and without even spelling it out that's understood to be the representation you're making when you sign your name and the i think that is the representation that was actually an attorney she's plainly made that we're not raising here on appeal but i don't think the law is you advance this complaint whose words are not like anything else for a specific defendant you advance this complaint and separate problem but i don't think the rule is by virtue of rule eleven we presume you've done some investigation that supports us i don't think address just a few fish you drawn and there was a mention of the notion that isn't this the end of the line if you don't appeal well one of the issues that the court has to address is the supreme court's decision in hess and the spencer case which followed it in terms of what the judge souter and judge ginsburg ultimately said in their concurring opinions relating to claims that can be brought even after a judgment or even after the issue is result in the abstract for its own sake there has to be some underlying constitutional right and in this situation we believe there is a protected liberty and property interest in the same sense that you have the liberty and property interest in your driver's license certainly accurate driving records are certainly crucial to that aspect and certainly in the liberty interest we have an interest in reputation good name honor and integrity now the middle versus davis makes those very hard to do without additional absolutely  be reputation plus and in this situation that means that has to be some altered right or status that's protected by indiana law in this situation or clearly an altered writer status because your driving record has changed you have points you have  black marks you have insurance issues there is a change going on which depend on the underlying fiction i can't resist adding mike in this case the underlying i guess the question is your honor what's the underlying conviction and i would just propose this notion ok if someone pays a ticket just pays where the only thing they have is this statute which says absolutely nothing certainly they did not admit to issues that weren't contained in the actual words of the statute so sure that's so obvious how could they possibly admit to something that isn't in the words of the statute that seems to defeat all issues of due process you can't be convicted unless it's in the words of the law that you were convicted under you can't just say you violated the code you violated something in there go figure it out in our families your honor we can sit there and say you know what you know what you did wrong but in the law in courts when we're being charged and that and i'm out of time i can finish just my sense well you may be charged so you actually need to say exactly what you