apologies to an august thirtieth twenty sixteen i follow my first complaint against the state of new york against judge dawson and others because i q's them basically of stealing my apartment and that case is still ongoing on march first of twenty seventeen presented my argument before this court in a case was remanded back on twelve of april just two weeks later i was arrested and put in jail i was  was anyway it's a special my brief the my argument is very simply this i am now a convicted felon i argued that judge dawson should have been recused from my case once i file my complaint and once i have argued before the squirt no person is above the law obviously us versus nixon that's and then this court argued in singleton vs the city of new york that there's a remedy if a violation of my rights before the court so i'm under the jurisdiction of either of either this court which is district court or state court either case the first prong of title forty two is i'm under the color of law so the next question before the under new york state it says it's a constitutional matter on page five and they go and he refers a says a judge shall not sit in such to take part in any decision action claims matter motions within six degrees of separation that's twenty two n y c r r one zero two they further went on and said that a judge show be show avoid impropriety an appearance of impropriety in any matters that's twenty two in and if i may right our problem isn't with the merits of your case as to which we really have nothing to say our merit problem is whether we have jurisdiction when you are suing the state or its individual members in their of fishel capacity because then we lever amendment gives them immunity from suit in federal state court that is and similarly when you are suing a judge a judge who has jurisdiction is totally immune it doesn't mean that you couldn't sue for jailers second a judge is not immune from actions though judicial in nature is taken in complete absence of jurisdiction based on brian vs no back she has complete absence of jurisdiction because she violated the rule itself of the court which does not give her immunity at all so she violated well it's twenty two and she hold you in contempt you know that's the merits of the question is whether or not all of the should have taken place action that you're saying that she did that was judicial outside her fortune as a judge she she should not hold any proceedings whatsoever as long as i have i am suing her within any court whether federal or local once i am before her she should not be within sixty degrees according to brian versus no back of my case so as soon as i fall the complaint that argued before this court that's an automatic recusal argument that she was required to recuse absolutely organs and the argument is because she was required to recuse she lacked jurisdiction correct she lacked years and therefore the only other jurisdiction left is this court because my case is still before this court is there any case this says doesn't have jurisdiction and i'm worried because i think that in fact the practice has been better judge who should have recused still has some jurisdictions here we come back to the problem of immunity your honor in harris persis harvey six o five after a jury concluded that harvey the judge was not eligible for judicial immunity for those actions even though the judge acted within normal duties i without as they say outside the jurisdiction because if automatic recusal is the foundation then anything you do from that point you don't have jurisdiction in fact further in a state versus  versus magazine that says you did judicial arm that lax jurisdiction must be lobbed off because it violates the due process rights of any individual therefore if you would send me to jail for one hundred years and does the courts decide to review the case again you have to come back to the question was any of the proceedings past the point of automatic refusal lawful or within jurisdiction and as you know jurisdiction cannot be decided by any judge it has to be decided on the record the record is i came before this court i testified it was remanded back to the lower court so since state court says she knows does not have jurisdiction over brian versus novak the only other jurisdiction left is this court and since my case is still before i go be back in a couple months i'm still under the jurisdiction of this court i hear from your adversary and you reserve two minutes  it please the court mark group for the state of new york and justice toss and the district court correctly concluded that the eleventh amendment and judicial immunity bar plaintiff's claims which seek monetary relief allegedly resulting from plaintiff's matrimonial court proceeding the eleventh amendment bars claims against the state and its employees acting in their official capacity for monetary damages which is all that plain osieck plaintiff identifies no way bruise or abrogation of sovereign immunity that apply here with respect to his claims against justice dawson in her individual capacity those claims are barred by judicial immunity all of the acts that are alleged in the complain judicial acts the court looks at whether their actions involving an individual proceeding or more in ministry to vax such as firing an employee a court employer something like that here the  along the lines of an individual proceeding with respect to justice dawson's dirt jurisdiction jurisdiction is construed broadly for immunity purposes whether  immunity purposes if the judge has a constitutional obligation to recuse the plaintiffs can appeal to a higher state court sent up to the united states supreme court and the united states review the transcript of the contempt hearing it appears that he had filed the recusal motion with the clerk's office but that it was not before just distaso then at the time of the contempt proceeding and that if he had filed it by order to show cause as justice dawson informed him it should then it would have been directly before her at the time but because he felt that by motion it had not reach that's correct as well as judicial ethics there are other grounds for complaining about a judge's conduct as well which had a financial interest in the out strong financial interest in the outcome right and  what their relief would be to take an appeal and get that decision reversed on appeal right and that's the case with the west virginia supreme court and the justice who had the large financial contributions and who is required to recuse lester any other questions we ask that you affirm the judgment of the district court i did file or accuse the motion before the judge prior to this and i also feel a refusal before this court because at the time the question was which jurisdiction i have i told you understood this i wrote a letter to judge abrams stating the fact that the state was going to argue people versus merino as their paramount case of why judges should not be recuse what in the bright bars of novak case made it very clear that is not the standard that's used the goal is that i am required on the law constitutionally to have an impartial jurist in fact justice scalia made a comment about flag burning and prayer in school and he recused himself from every case relating to that justice kagan on the bench recused herself from thirty cases because she operated under the obama administration if i was argument for a supreme court justice neal is one of my undergraduate classmate he would have to recuse himself from the case whether he knows me personally or through second or third degree the point is your honor the goal is that constitutionally i am required to have an impartial jurist that means you cannot have jurisdiction over me while there's a pending process and the rhine versus nova made it very in fact in my letter which is part of a record i wrote the judge says they're going to use people versus marino and i was so happy because i was following the bryant case and i'm so glad that it happened on the twenty fourth of october two weeks before just decision which means it should at least references that the state of argued this and come to a unanimous decision that would mean six judges over here on my side justice scalia justice kagan justice kennedy all over here looking to you guys and says this is an automatic recusal it would not lift up to you so what i'm asking is this very simply i've already won this case under brian versus novak versus the state in order for me to lose this you have to take away from my saying that does not apply then you have to go to a mere marilyn's versus waco which justice scalia clearly says if you're absence of jurisdiction you can switch argy made it very clear was of five to four i think thomas also a key agreed with it you cannot have an imp error of question for judges so even though even in the constitution there is no rule for a recusal and they've said that but it just makes sense from a public perspective step away from the case allow me to have my due process so there's a violation due process second when i was in court i went directly from the court to prison i was never given a chance to appeal a case i was never an opportunity on ntitled to due process i'm entitled to impartial jurist and i'm entitled to appeal none of which happened the mere fact i argued on march first before this court that's it recusal anything beyond that is void thank you very best for your arguments well argued on both sides we will have we have the briefs and we will take the matter under submission