the court my name is stephen i am appearing on my own behalf and these proceedings the court has asked us to respond to the state court of appeals decision which said that i should have raised my procedure due process doesn't procedural argument in my disciplinary proceedings back in two thousand five i'd like to explain hopefully briefly why that case cannot be considered by this court we start off with a fallacy of logic a fallacy that the ninth circuit knows well it is found in many of its reported cases it is that two what that means that preclusion is that as an issue concerning rest you get caught first of all your honour's the first wrong is the decision of the superior court judge koza ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction and when we all agree i think i would agree with you anyway that incorrectly the judge judge should have said what the court of appeal s rules of the state of washington so tell us why we shouldn't respect that that decision your honor the decision of the court of appeals is not a part of the record in this case it's we can take judicial notice of decisions of our of state courts if we have it's not ever densher e it's published we've looked at it it's not like it's a piece of testimony we want you telling us we must ignore it yes appeals by doing this because of appeals reversed judge cozies decision but reversed the decision then the court of appeals that law that case as informant and telling us what washington long as well with regard to the precludes effect of the earlier just station they have done we need to do that not not as part of the record in this case but as information about washington preclusion law you know why well because the court didn't have jurisdiction to make that decision it was acting in excess of its appellate jurisdiction the decision is well let me consider a few points no court can make a decision on other grounds unless there are other grounds on which to make that decision this court can't make a decision in this case on the appellate case decision because it's not grounds in this proceeding the court of appeals could not make the decision on other grounds because the there was no record regarding the evidence pertaining to preclusion let me let me put you in a different direction here are if you can help me forget about the superior court the washington courts seem to follow it is that one must raise on appeal arguments about the infirmity of a trial or the lower proceedings or waive them and so all your complaints about what was done wrong to you in that initial set of disciplinary proceedings should have been raised to the washington supreme court who could have ruled on them or not ruled on that or so that's even in the absence of these two recent decisions by the washington courts i'm i'm kind of inclined to think that the washington court of appeals analysis of rescue to caught it was correct so tell me why it was wrong it didn't have any jurisdiction to make that this is not a i'm not i forgive i asked you to forget about it say your claims are precluded we have to decide whether your claims are precluded whether or not the washington court ever addressed this issue so tell us why your claims are not precluded this court does not have the issue of preclusion before whether it's exactly the issue the other side raised as a defense in the district court they to a raised it the district court may have relied on the wrong washington decisions in reaching it's it's position i don't care about that i want to know why in your case your claims are not precluded well first of all the court did not have jurisdiction titus we're going about jurisdictional here i'm asking you a very simple substantive question ensure claims in this case preclude it and the evidence would show i had no idea there was any unconstitutionality regarding the washington state disciplinary system i had no idea this the first time i'd ever  until it went it you didn't have any idea because you didn't read the rule so you don't have any idea because until it actually operated it didn't the due process violation wasn't apparent your if you don't understand what ha i went through a disciplinary proceeding i was suspended for eighteen months that was a terribly traumatic decision i found out as i learned that that system did not provide a fair trial when did you when did you learn that when did i learn that way if after you've after the supreme court ruled or while you were in the system well i learned that because when not because i'm running out of time and i'm not able to get  while i was going through my suspension the counsel that brought the disciplinary action against me began investigating a grievance that he had sitting on his desk for a few years thought my goodness they're threatening me again so i went to the district court obviously i met the younger abstention doctor and did not apply because there was an eminent risk  brought the action what happened the bar association dismissed the case or the grievance so case number two was moot i filed case number three which was to question the constitutionality of mandatory association in this not not in front of us here so move on all right but the case for in case five are emanations of the threat of disciplinary action that was really created ok let me ask you about that the second thing we asked you to dress as i recall is a scientist at the second after after they got into the position of investigating me on a complaint or grievance that actually was dead nothing had been happening on it for weeks months so from their investigation they came up with a an ethical violation supposedly it was a conflict of interest which didn't really exist and that has been resolved  stipulated to what is it sixty days in two years probation ok so it wasn't all right so that it given that that has been resolved why isn't how do you have standing here well first of all i'm the appellant in the case the case is on appeal the case was found against me based upon the state court decision saying it didn't have jurisdiction so it goes up on a appellate court says the state court was wrong it doesn't have jurisdiction and now judge bearing said i'm going to go through an analysis and find out whether you should have raised this issue way back in problem when you're not at and the only way it seems to me that you can maintain your case is if you have some allegation that either they're going to upon you again or you do so or some reason some continuing inch interest affected by their disciplinary proceeding what is it well that the case this case are you trying to undo any of the disciplines that already happened now so on two thousand and sixteen the well the most recent discipline the discipline that you stipulated to what your injury from that that we're supposed to remedy well i was forced into it obviously nobody wants to mess with the washington state bar association once they have decided they're going to try to do something to you they'd do it but we can only recognize yourself we can only because of record feldman and younger we can only remedy prospective injury so what's your perspective injury from the state bar with respect to this stipulated discipline but are you saying that the case is moot now yes yes when i say that's a major way because of what because the case is moot because you've chosen not to challenge this discipline in the washington courts which was your right and secondly you have an alleged any prospective injury with respect that that you haven't said and they're coming after me again let me let me understand it very simply i had standing to bring the action you did it to tell at the time and then facts changed you brought the action and then and then the facts on the ground changed and now we're asking you whether that the fact that you voluntarily stipulated to a discipline moots any claim that there will be prospective damage from that discipline that's the one very your honor the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to render that this is and you have to accept that what this court itself is limited by its appellate jurisdiction you know we're way out of time the court of appeals decision would have to be tested in the federal court because the court of appeals decision is only rest judicata if it had jurisdiction court of appeals didn't have jurisdiction because it was acting at excesses of its jurisdiction and secondly the court of appeals could only affirm on the basis of the record just as this court can only any grounds that supported by the record here we would ask that this court affirm the district court's decision that this matter is precluded under the doctrine of res judicata that the standing question is question sure so i can i can address standing first and we do believe that you relax standing in order to bring his you know there are two disciplines at issue here the one the one that went through the way up to the washington supreme court in two thousand and nine and there's that i understand that your argument is that there's a  the second one the stipulated discipline which seems to be a subject of the complaint there's nothing out there we just we is there actually we would argue that that order is also perfectly what order the order although i'm not sure it's on the record i believe it means that the bar association monitors his activities so if he's going to be monitored for two years is does that provide some sort of  theoretical future injury i think it would be entirely fact speculative unless there was some basis in the record that indicated that he was likely to be subject to disciplinary proceedings if you were complaining about the nature of the monitoring might be different now the words here are saying i agreed to monitoring what they are they're searching my house in my drawers that might be that might be something that would give rise to a nine hundred eighty three question would it not i think in the context of this case if he were to provide facts that his due process were law making those determinations were not bound by the decision of the court of appeals correct well i think it just is an interpretation of washington law that we might give deference but we're only you're not claiming that  that decision is law of the case here i don't believe it's either case but i think there are strong precedents and it's u s supreme court precedent it's me dr you warren city school district board of education which indicates that federal courts do give a fact to state as you suggest that this very issue has already been litigated in the state courts and he can't take it lateral appeal to us if you will crack that he's brought this very claim in the state courts a beginning and thinking about whether you know de novo without the advice of the washington court of appeals there was actually preclusion i don't think it's so obvious well i agree there is an issue with the district court's decision in this case but there are  bad argument that the second one he should have been precluded by the first one but the washing court of appeal since he was so the washington court of appeals did look to that first disciplinary proceeding there is another preclears of order here that i think it's worth looking at which is to three and that was the western district of washington case where he brought constitutional claims against the ws v a he did make allegations regarding due process in that case i thought were and i must admit it you can correct me if i'm wrong but i'm i thought those claims when you two three were sort of the mandatory state bar claims that we see occasionally it was a first amendment challenge it wasn't it a particular challenge to his his disciplinary proceedings that was a challenge at the washington state bar shouldn't exist or have any power so the arguments the claims in that case were first amendment claims but he made allegations regarding due process and in fact the reason he does not want to be a member of the b two thousand and fifteen i think by then you must have known of all your due process claims against the washington bar so you should have combined in that proceeding in the end it all claims that arose the difficulty is out of the same transaction and i have no idea what transaction he was attacking in two thousand that's really the problem that it presents to the claim preclusion the fact that it was a different discipline seems to me to be a real problem i do think it's also important to look at the nature of the claim here which is relatively amorphous there's not a specific allegation we're relating to any specific occurrence that occurred within the system disciplinary proceedings that's just a generalized it's not a fair process still i mean if you know i mean aren't there some old case about different tax you want to complain and then you have another car accident and you have some complaint about a legal complaint about the structure of the statutes or whatever it is to different transaction it's not claim  particular that's why i have trouble with creating roman numeral three is preclude it may or may not be but i'm not sure it matters right and again we don't have specific allegations relating to a specific way such that he would have been able to raise his due process violation at that time it really did look at the nature of his due process claim which is very similar i mean the claims were nearly identical what he alleged in superior court proceedings as what he alleged here he tends to file