good morning we will call the cases off the calendar in the exact order in which they're listed with us that first is the state of arizona counsel you may be bar council attorneys and we had that i don't mean it's not critical but you can't seriously contend you can bring a lawsuit against a state court judges can you i mean that when you're serious arguments it isn't for this and for this reason this opinion that was rather scathing of him for which he did not have noticed which was not part of the appeal he didn't have any case at all that says you can do exactly what you're trying to do with respect to the court o for injunctive or perspective released and it does mention judicial as well as other state court officers and that is what we're looking at we are not seeking monetary damages what we are seeking  to try to rectify this wrong by having this opinion deep published by whoever said if you ever seen another case where federal judges ordered state judges to do something i cannot i cannot cite the court to  think that sends some signals to you as to with respect to the validity of this argument it's tense and strong signals that it does that this is this this is a rather unusual circumstance an issue and we have the last of a federally protected right don't you have the remedy i'm sorry but i don't you have other avenues to pursue this you're talking about a court of appeals arc or other places to go if you have a problem with what they've done that's what basic appeals are for in the state systems are for example the supreme court in your state and in our case mr tacet first sought reconsideration and then appeal and was left in the situation that he is in today why by and by pain i don't believe the supreme court is going to be interested in me and here he says this deals with a wrong was done to an individual and i don't believe it's the type of issue that the supreme court's going to take hold of and i don't believe that we had any other avenue that gave him an opportunity to attempt to redress the wrong was done to him and i don't believe that there's anyone that can look at what happened in this case and say the court of appeals did act improperly they did deny him due process rights they did take something from him and that taking continues to this day will continue into the future which is that what the problem here is not just the question of he was fined five thousand dollars she had to pay it's a question of his reputation his honor his prohibit this continuation of the publication of this case you're not going to ask you this court to second guess or verse a state court appellate action what we're asking this court to do is say justices and judges what to do out to do it you did this wrong i understand there will be tens of thousands of these cases filed i don't believe so because tens of thousands of these patients aren't published and what we're looking at t do what it did we're asking the court to do is simply say this opinion will no longer be published mr valentino you make kind of a sympathetic approach and you know you have a lawyer  and he's faced with some language in an opinion that's going to follow in the rest of his career and it's why we're very careful of what we put in public opinions about lawyers and you even go farther and you say you know and he didn't even have a hearing before they did this to him he asked for he didn't get it and so if we but with we were to change that it would probably be on the basis that there was a denial of due process that he should have had a hearing an opportunity to present his side but here you've got a state appellate court that considered the very issue and you can kind of see those justices doing well we don't really need a hearing because everything on which we have based this language was before us already so there's no point in having a hearing or granting a rehearing now assuming if we'll sanction you under a completely different rule so what they did was they originally denied him due process the night of the hearing sanction and under rule he said i want to hear the facts that you didn't have this was never raised that second determination i don't have an answer that question whether there's no there's no second rehearing option available i don't know that if that he sought when i know he appealed at that point which appeal is not taken up but the procedural rules don't allow  based on the disability an act which stance which was the night and there was was an appeal of that issue which is pending so at this point it's depending that's the state the parent your points are very clearly made in your brace would you care to problem doctrine was raised for the first time on appeal why should we entertain that that theory if you're raising it for the first time on appeal it's a jurisdictional subject matter jurisdictional issue which can be raised at this time on appeal setting aside those kinds of questions are you comfortable with the process that was meted out to the mr was tested in this case i am should be sanctioned was taking a frivolous appeal and based on the record before them found that the appeal was not well trained you heard the other side say they switched gears midstream and they can get mr tester going to appropriate opportunity to respond to the know or in direct order our argument that there were other statutes and rules that would indicate that that immunity had not been expressed plea waived by the state he is claiming a substantial monetary and punitive damage award and all of those claims have to go by the wayside based upon the younger abstention doctrine as well as the and i lent him an immunity arguments which opening brief and again ignored in his reply brief and the district court did indicate and did state that the state bar defendants had presented several valid argument that during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings in your state are risks of mandamus available through the courts for a person feels aggrieved by process going off track in the disciplinary proceeding you know quite frankly i'm not sure about little bit but you can get intermediary appeals and review of certain processes true what is called special action and that has replaced what some mandamus types of actions but i don't we try to make sure people e and non economic relief and that's all we raised at this point in terms of an appeal and the route we also like non state actors who acted in concert with the witnesses you know yes there were witnesses and there are also other attorneys that were sued there were several there were several other nine direct state entities it was through in the underlying case those were dismissed doesn't it doesn't affect that at that opinion what it does is at least it prevents the continued damage to my client's life and his reputation his honor which is going to continue for as long as that but that case remains in publication law and kind act involving an attorney that it would be that it would show to other people what they shouldn't do now that texas thanks sentient that i mean that is part of the decision making not only what you put in your opinion but whether you want to publish or not or whether you tell it contributes to the body a lot sensually you are interfering with what the court thinks is a proper decision as part of the whole package why don't i don't agree because the case the  scathing opinion that resulted from that denial to my client and i believe that on balance what you're what you're doing is you're preventing continuing future injury in the only manner that we can and you're still leading the pack and you're not countermanding what they've done even though they've clearly deny this man due process sanctioned him improperly without a proper without notice or hearing and then where the public's opinion quote the letters he wrote to opposing counsel and part of the saga it quotes quotes i think in a footnote one letter and that's an interesting thing that we need not get into but those letters were in response to equally scathing letters from the other side which had they had the hearing paul that would have come out and again also points out another example of why it's so inappropriate that this man and his reputation have to forever be merged by a lack