youth general counsel for the department of insurance i then move transitioned over to another position in state government as the chief of the conservation liquidation office over the ensuing six years i've been called repeatedly to perform work for the state of california subpoenaed to trials told that i have to seek my own counsel despite a mandatory indemnification provision and it's cost me and my family thousands of dollars the question is why should i contract action your honor why i know you seem to fall into the i noticed this in the answering brief attempt to constitutionalized a contract claim i have the ability to choose a well the reason i chose this way of fixing it because i have a mandatory statute that the state of california refuses to follow and it's a twenty five little eighty they've used the contract the subsequent contract as a way to this up as a contract claim for four years i was a civil servant with statutory rights given to me by the state of california i would not have made millions of dollars in decisions if i'd been told that these statutory rights did not apply for to me and in fact as the general counsel of that agency it was wrote taken verbatim that every former or current employee of the state was entitled to this mandatory statutory indemnification california tried to coerce an attorney to provide free legal services for indigent of became the treaties for the united states i set the start up that the treaties in europe why on earth do i have to come back years later and work on the holocaust project pro bono which they say mr palmer announced to the world that he worked pro bono on the holocaust therefore he must work continue to work pro bono good morning richard manford state of california deputy attorney general appearing on behalf of john garamendi in all capacities in which he has been sued i'd like to speak first to immunity because i think that's dispositive in his official capacity and he had several insurance commissioner  and conservative or other insurance companies to have conservation he was clearly a public official and arm of the state of california and and conservative or just the head of the low which would therefore make it as much and arm of the state as was it ok i understand but i think our situation is fishing to differ from what the court is describing that the eleventh amendment does apply but if i may move on to  what really is the substantive issue here the complaint alleges that the failure to pay mr palmer constitutes a governmental taking of his  property without just compensation the fifth amendment is as good as to state government only to the extent that the fourteenth amendment says so and that says that the states will you know you not deprive any person or property payments he claims that are due this is not an employment contract case where he had a right to the employment for a specified term and which could be terminated only for  problem at that point there is a state process i understand that but the way you are arguing it doesn't depend on that i'm saying think i first started talking about the first amendment and then went to the fourteenth but the difference here is that yes there is a state process for compensation that gives him all of the correct but and that was the question iran imposed at the beginning of the case why didn't you file a state court action well the reasons he may he may like to be in this forum but because that's just preference doesn't give him a right to be here the obvious reasons that he has filed here in federal court trying to turn this into a constitutional case because in a state court action you can't get punitive damages for breach of contract there's no attorney for you right  to go through the claims filing process and so forth these his position here is no different from that of the sprinkler contractor in allusion or the cemetery caretaker in the bowl or and just a plethora of cases which have held in situations where you have a service provider providing services pursuant to a contract there is no constitutional protection there whereas in a situation  understand what you say because this isn't you're not trying to keep your job when you have one are not what you're trying to do is get paid to work you get them it's not just that your honor it's that i i do not want to have to pay for other people to work for the government i don't want to have to hire lawyers like i have and spend seventy six thousand dollars but the point is that you want it's not that you want to do this work or that you want to keep the position what you want it's that for any work excess in casualty reinsurance association vs insurance commissioner of california standing was proper in that case i i need to emphasize that i'm not arguing about employment under a contract i'm arguing that i'm entitled to defense and indemnification under state laws that are mandatory sta a constitutional case and having claims asserted against me being subpoenaed in cases being potentially sued in cases and me having and my family having to to pay money because of these cases it's there is no discretion in the statute they point to the contract which i was under for one year and say well there's there's discretion under this contract for one year so we don't have to pay you there not talk but then they sidestepped all the discussion under the government code that provides me with these rights which they refused to acknowledge if anything i would have a standing under ex parte young basically stop the state from bothering me