my plane has jurisdiction on the basis of forty two u s one hundred and eighty three federal questions unconstitutional use of the violations of due process in order to without any process at all i also challenge the constitutionality as is a forgery even to the local prosecutor refused to enforce part of this action part of the of the order i was able to get a meeting with state senator seers concerning the subject matter of the state and things are not inextricably intertwined of the same action until a state court is scrutinized and rendered a judgment on the merits of a constitutional argument and one of the problem was the partition acting which was closed in two thousand and seven a lot of these unconstitutional arguments and activities done without any prior process at all never mind due process took place after the court lost jurisdiction and this is around supreme court said you know well you know you can't have you know your appeal was you know you had your appeal with the partition action in two thousand and seven and i say well this has nothing to do with a few one thousand and seven action that's over i'm not i'm not appealing there's no there's no way that judgment could be could remain valid if you were successful in this federal court it seems to me is predicated on the fact your your actions predicated on the is i'm not but we have to make i'd like to make it clear that i'm not asking the court to review the two thousand and seven partition order which gave me a fee simple but feasible is what took place five and seven years after the court lost any jurisdiction thank you constitutional due process claims because they were not litigated below but we've got the case of whole block versus albany county board of elections  circuit case which adult court a legal theory not raised in state court cannot insulate a federal plaintiff's suit from rocker feltman if the federal suit nonetheless complains of injury from a state court judgment and seeks to have that state court judgment reparse we have clear case law on that issue how do you respond or the response well i would say that i think a good example of the way appellant are seeking to appeal state court orders from the argument this morning is his mention or his suggestion that a sale out of the camp he was disputing with his siblings fell through because the real estate market changed actually as the superior court found that his continued occupation of the camp called the buyers to cancel a sale appellant is speaking to directly contradict a series of state court orders and he's seeking  better part of the last decade seeking to relate to both of those disputes multiple course of already applied rigor feldman and principals with occlusion to dismiss somewhere claims and multiple courts of already found similar claims to be frivolous and awarded attorney fees to a felon siblings appellant was also disbarred in washington in part for pursuing a long history of frivolous litigation including use with the siblings over at the trust worker copeman bars this action because appellant cannot appeal to court orders to a federal district court appellant has also failed to name proper parties he cannot extinguish the rights of his nonparty simply cycling the attorney general who is not involved in any of the underlying disputes and is not a court the attorney general of the month could not strike docket entries as appellant requests or change court orders and finally claim preclusion ballers appellants claims because he has already litigated his claims several times against discipline this case mr mulligan is a party to this action soley by virtue of being the good faith purchaser of the lake eden property that was the subject of the underlying partition dispute mr mulligan purchased that property from the appellant siblings years after the partition action was over the city siblings are not here pellant has stated that he does not contest the partition action there's no dispute that he did not pay the twenty five thousand dollars q to each of his siblings as required under the original partition order therefore there is no dispute as far as mr mulligan goes the case should be over there also as judge walk points out the router rooker feldman doctrine is in play here the court below properly dismissed the appellant's collateral attacks on the previous from a state court judgments well as the previous four a and i believe two thousand and eleven to the vermont district court it's lost these cases and cannot continue to collaterally attack these previous judgments based on constitutional arguments well if you look at page seventeen of my priest the time has come your honour's for this matter to be complete concluded we ask the court affirm the district court decision below and unless the court has any questions for me i respectfully reply upon rely upon our brief as well as the arguments of the vermont state defendants thank you for your time einstein honesty integrity ethics and can go or what happened in washington and it's printed ishall it's not part of the file route and i resent the fact that opposing counsel brought it up but now you know the out what happened