three central points of our argument st just or gymnasts was not denied access to the services programs activities and benefits of the administrative those services programs activities at that nd despite his disability mr gymnasts was not a qualified individual for purposes of the americans with disability act i was not qualified to waste thank you st you cannot ask for and receive multiple postponements for a hearing and a trial and then claim that you did not have the right to stand trial you disqualify yourself by asking for a postponement and a nd reason as having been found incompetent at the time mr jeffs would be eligible because of his lack of competency to stand trial or to participate in any other hearing so where scenario was at fault whether it be the judge the commonwealth the counsel to mr jonas everyone nobody is excluded and so when a claim is brought against the commonwealth for the due process which it can be at least by allowing an amended complaint the commonwealth has me it's got to be the sea or the health and human services and then when it comes to you is it in us it's got to be the commonwealth or somebody else i mean it's like everybody's pointing fingers at everybody else and it's this person if if he was truly incompetent as you say he was and backed has been found to be why did it take nine years plus of this kind of delay before there was even an attempt made to say ok there's nothing here and then once you do say this on the air the judge doesn't even buy that he says no go ahead just know the process in that opinion does the judge criticize and take the task of the lawyers who are representing mr gymnasts for what they did and what they did not do and the record have worked if the lawyers would have got off of their hands and file kindly motions and by the way those motions if we look at the record were timely answered by the cork now maybe the court didn't answer them the maybe that was very strategy but the pestle dandiya rules of criminal procedure gave them the opportunity to do so the judges in fayette county when they presented motions good indeed legal system in pennsylvania it is the one with assigned administrative tasks to us sr the system in working and by the way that system can and does work the rules of criminal procedure secondarily where he should have been oust when he was found to be mentally incapacitated for trial so when you want to look i don't want to label the conduct of the department of human services as a pennsylvania to house all these people but that's where that's where that buck stops and so yes there's a lot of blame a lot of fault and i read that kind of carefully never watched the dedication and say the administrative office of genesis examinations transfers and motions resulting in nearly a decade of imprisonment and civil commitment before a hearing was finally held on his atheism to sion are more than sufficient to state a claim under the a d f a close quote you then say possibly pin that on and it may be more than one party we're not saying you'll necessarily lose always saying is at the motion to dismiss stage without a fully developed factual record system and when necessary reporting to the to supreme court judges will counsel with respect there to and then six examining the state of the docket in practices and procedures of the courts and making recommendation expedition of litigation and this is the other end of the spectrum of the lay in terms of not having expedited litigation that that in a nutshell is their complaint and that the motion to dismiss stage with judge thing i need more information why not but just let it go you may very well win in the end and i and i very well aware  going criminal case could have any impact on what happens in an ongoing criminal case and again on what the judge use in fayette county might rule in response to a radius corpus motion accompanied by a motion to  i want to i want to pay and how do we know that the supreme court said well ok it's a decision of that lawyer to file a motion to continue because it's his belief that by doing that his best protecting his client and then you got the supreme court interceding not to let it get not as a proponent but rather as a terrorist we already have jurors that are making decisions which didn't work  then you would think ok either they monitored the docket and didn't report up or they didn't monitor the docket when they should have and that sounds to me like something that gets espoused and a motion to dismiss is judge  will think to differ so the st of all the the fact that they monitor the docket and compliance with pennsylvania law and the mental health procedures act a person charged with homicide can remain incarcerated truck to ten years or longer based on that charge of homicide without being brought to trial so on disability somehow hinges the law which i don't think it guys because i thought the law was even as to all in the purpose of the of the idea was to make sure  application of that law and so once they would have looked at this stuff they would say no this is inside the boundaries of the mental health procedures act the problem is was in the rock the man should have been in a different location not their responsibility yes i'm going to pass the buck on that one and so when renewed asked the administrative office what what they were doing they did what they were assigned to do but even if they did monitoring and do it the system that that doesn't create the necessary causal matches between that conduct and get off in time in order to be counted or does it not get off in time in the school keeper here who's in charge of monitoring the dockets it looks as if the judges and i'm not going to say you didn't do your job or you did do your job i just need to have the stubbly to resolve what actually happened and that seems to go to the merits and why not let it that happen that occurred let's find out what the real facts are as i said you may when me and and and i have confident that we can and should but i'm just going to for analogy the scorekeeper doesn't make that call it the basket in the possibility that every agency of every state who is accused of failure to ensure compliance with the americans with disabilities act would make a claim for sovereign immunity that means that the every nation of sovereign immunity by the recognized that the p c is an arm of the state and so therefore all of this talk about whose job this was or why the air p c should not be held liable for the failures in this case has nothing to do with so and obtained continuing to use is providing ineffective assistance of counsel something one thing no you're our st let me say that we now left the question of sovereign immunity we are now on the question of sort of liability under the statute we're not talking about sovereign immunity so i say that when they lost the question of sovereign immunity this collateral appeal should not have been available it's maybe something they wanted to raise on there was some appeal but this is a question of so deposition you if you're considering anything beyond the question of sovereign immunity yes with your considering the malice or why a would be seen as responsible for this which i think should be delayed to a point in the case where it's appropriate because it's not this point but if you tell me what and said that he'd be willing to no prosecutions there was never a hearing on any of the allegations in all four of the motions rabies corpus so he did not have access to the court order he got his i think better than the trial he got released without having to suffer a well what do you really sound like the user you're complaining of is that the way that occurred in the county courts sat on those previous corpus motions and didn't act on you won't find somebody and i think you probably remember this from from the time that we had cases together when i was a trial judge no one is more interested in any fish and justice and i am because i've always believed that justice dockets at a snail's pace and unfortunately we in the cult courts have to to be a little doubt whether it be the stage of your federal judge but the who who solves that problem i think everyone on this call e trial judge doesn't the trial court doesn't measure up to standard isn't that a job in the state system for the state supreme court or in the federal system the u defender moved for a continuance was because the plaintiff was incompetent to stand trial it wasn't for some other reason secondly a pathetic way by the way with those was all crossed by the district attorney on the admission that there was entry stuff that they couldn't prove against my client evidence that hadn't changed in ten years so this wasn't exactly there's no reason to suspect that the defense lawyers made with move to avoid trial if there is an enormous amount of years seven years eight years nine years and custody and nothing's been done it's not as though it's not like they're trying to sharpshooter judge the st or nd time a continuous is granted for a legitimate reason that continues was requested for a reason that doesn't although in the depositions i took they denied them found out about it somehow and well within the st five years of this nine plus year ordeal they were on the phone with the local administrator so they had some system and when that should supreme court but even even if they d went to the supreme court even if they had taken the step and gone to the chief justice on the court as a whole it was one hundred percent within the supreme court of pennsylvania's discretion as to what to do with that information wasn't well yes but you have to presume that the sacred then you lose on then you have a causation problem maybe you might be right it might be a liability issue  after the a o can see trends with the information is not right i don't understand the question that i'm sorry yes sure sorry about that we you are quite right that there are constraints on the p a supreme court they don't have absolute understanding or or challenging you with the notion that you gotta call the sion problem because if the p c had we ported back to the pennsylvania supreme court consistent with what five and five year old p c still has no power to counter me whatever decision was made on the pennsylvania supreme court about what to do with that almost any of us have we sort of been taught from the time we left law school that the clerk's office is not really brought into litigation it's not sued it's it's somebody else but you just don't think of it as being the clerk's office and then the concern is if you hold that the a o p c is not shielded by sovereign immunity then you have are we opening the floodgates for  suits against it or other clerks offices for every type of suit that can't be brought against prosecutors or other actors within the legal system we're not talking about the courts here we're talking court ignored its duty we had a whole different case here the causation is anywhere p c has this been placed upon it by the state they say so in all of their literature they admit to it and they by the way to undertaking partially record in this case but he is one thing he does his thing has been throughout is that this is a case that is whether sovereign immunity bars in essence claims that the o p c discriminated against him in magic play so why don't you start of with addressing whether there's a title to violation that would abrogate sovereign immunity in every tapes it's not a plank it that you have to value a whether there is truly a title to violation so as to add in every case as to every defendant and in this case as to the p c whether that title to violation would abrogate sovereign immunity that did we don't disagree but just not in play as to the p c you know you have to have a to fail a duty you have to have an obligation and the obligation has to be i might add more than quotes we could have done it could have done more that's not an allegation that requires a violation this nd amended complaint doesn't say what it what it should have done that would have been a violation of the nd title of article and to try to make sure that x but that litigation goes through expeditiously and it didn't happen here and it didn't happen the argument is in violation of the mental health procedures act that this person the da you know how do we get to the bottom of which party or parties has a duty here how do we get to the bottom of that allowed us after the department of human may have resulted in him being able to stand trial so good that happened that is the responsibility of calo pennsylvania through the department of human services and no no duty in that regard thirty one white co had the authority and opportunity to intervene yet no action was taken thirty five white kohala motion requesting plaintiff's probably continued until the plane had be competent mr janessa speight was in the hands of his lawyers and whether it was strategic or otherwise no conduct of the a o p siesta right pay over the management of that case nor is it a joke b c you have a right to tape tell the supreme court you've got to take over the case and oh by the way the door to the supreme court is equally available to the lawyers representing jeanette says it