as it does have a more complicated procedural history and i think it's just important to emphasize that this is not a work of feldman case for this very simple reason that this time there is no state court loser seeking a several appeal of a state court final judgment now many reasons why this is not a recall feldman case not least of which is that the important federal injury here that yet to be addressed by any state court is that she was forced by a state court order to participate in a family court proceeding with a man who raped and impregnated her and all and they couldn't have because what basis do you have when a state courts is expressly that rejecting all the other we often say that in our opinions will get to the end of the pinion and will say we've addressed these why the federal interest both important and clearly not yet resolved before you get to that point if i take are you now making that would be even if the second as a g c decision rejected her standing to be heard they could they wouldn't have decided she suddenly had standing if two years earlier they said she didn't have standing a thing we should read silence the other way well what i'm saying is on this unusual facts we can't injury in fact and so they're simply saying the criminal proceeding going on over here we're not going to let third parties who want to defend you know the state claim injury from what is happening over there otherwise we'd have an appeal every time from victims and however once someone then tried to force over a choir or do anything to your client in the second proceeding you had the injury had become tangible and you had standing  have to overturn the first ruling in order to rule for you that's what you bought the second case no no we participated no i don't i'm not going to agree that that's our reason for peeling a reason for killing was to ultimately find someone somewhere to address this federal who raped her doesn't pay for the consequences of his crime through this what do you call a chance a quarter or anything else she has no idea which court to go to should she go to the family court because they don't have an order in place saying he should pay child support that would be imposed on her liberty substantially she has to file contempt hire a lawyer do all sorts of or should she go to the superior court which issued the first order saying he has to pay financially for the cuts that would cost and nothing for purposes of this appeal in this case you want us to focus on the challenge being to the first s j c decision because that's the one you keep identifying as the root of the problem and you say that doesn't create a group or felony problem if that's the reasoning right there was a probation order in the underlying criminal case correct what in that word what in that text of the order is that any proceedings must be given in family court years that is the original federal injury that has not been addressed was was not addressed because they decided my client had no standing to object even though it implicated her federal rights and we still don't have any any better solution and now she doesn't know which court to go to because these two conflicting orders really you know our are up for grabs which one does she owe back a one implicates or federal rights if she obeys the family court order that if she just allows the state to do its job and enforce the probationary condition and concert nothing in terms of her liberty that's the one that ought to apply but we still have no answer because the federal question has not been resolved thank you enduring trauma that is caused by serious crimes respectfully the plaintiff has already availed herself of the proper remedy of appealing in state courts from a probate in family court order that she believes infringes on her rights under the united states constitution relationship and that was adjudicated once in a federal district court in twenty thirteen put that aside since that time what has happened is she is again a kilt in the state system she's exhausted the federal claims she's gone back to state court filed a motion by virtue of the twenty thirteen or and if that was the argument her contention is you can read that as j c you have rejected it for the same reason it rejected the first time which you concede that ground of rejection does not give rise on the police thank you thank you