darn me the first thing i'd like to talk about is the masterpiece cake shop case which we submitted as supplemental authority a first amendment case what does that have to do with your case it is what it has to do with is that both kicked both the first amendment and the due process cause and i'll cite the case that supports this look to the neutrality of the decision maker masterpiece which also by the way involved an administrative agency says a page two forty two page two forty two that the requirement of quote neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards t central concerns of procedural due process so you think as i understand it that life tenure us district judges are incapable of looking at a social i absolutely i take that another words you've moved on to i think another question as i understand that i have the heart of the case i fare enough no i get it and it's a little more complicated act is that the review of federal judges life tenured federal judges is not the novo in any real sense that rather all of what they're limited to is reviewing the findings and conclusions of the administrative agency well my understanding is you agree with what the district court did and terms of sending the case back and act in terms of disagree with  it is in your mind the failure of the district court to conclude that this particular able j was completely biased  no i would say no i would say and that's why i'm talking about grant the way this as i if grant is correct with the sighted and it seemed reasonable all the district court can do is review you ask for a ruling on that in the absolutely absolutely i did you did you present that to the district court yes so you're saying the district court should have said whatever  refused to admit well but that's because we have s s r thirteen dash one p because under that the ail j is not permitted to look at that evidence he's supposed to send o no it's supposed to be automatic while in the appeals council level it's supposed to be automatic did you ask do they do it i asked that they reviewed the well i'm sorry i keep having that i asked if they reviewed the whole thing request that if we were to hold that as this or thirteen is valid then we remained with an order to comply with it did you say valid or invalid if we were to hold that s s are thirteen  under the s s r for what it's worth if i read it the appeals council is automatically stand at that there so i understand it but i'm asking you now what are you asking us to do i don't see out that it's statistical mishmash we don't know how many if you'll let me finish my question or thought me thank you he pointed out that we have no idea of the totality the entire preserve burdens on you you're presenting this information you didn't present any each statistical expert to say that this is a valid picture of what this judge is like so we're left with the general proposition that you don't want to appear in front of ale j s that you consider on your own to be biased without proof of whether they really are biased but what i believe th do random a statistically significant analysis in their work what we're left with is your assertion an assertion that you've made against at least two other seattle based js that they're biased and you can't prevail on the merits in a social security disability case in front of these three l j's correct that's your position as to certain classes of claimants ok yes ok that's it let me ask you then what specifically did you want the district court to do because the council admitted the evidence but then made a ruling the district court and what did you think the district court was going to do and considering your appeal since it now had the evidence in the record it had the appeal council decision and you're basically saying that that's and the decision that was wrongly made what i asked for in the hope to get was for the district court to renew and get back to the commissioner with an order a sickly saying this should go to the appeals council and they should consider the merits of generalized bias claims notwithstanding s s r thirteen the basically so issue in order to do that what did the district court need to look at look at the record right there they did have to look at the record including the fact that nobody at the administrative level ever dealt with the substance of the question which i submit that under masterpiece well i guess it depends on how you read how you consider the determination made by the well the defendant three i cited the page agreed that the appeals council did not consider the evidence and they couldn't under the s s r because it says it's out of because in the world against you well yes i suppose so but there is nothing in the opinion that not just that it was considered to be honest and that's part of the issue i'm so there was no help me with the argument as to why you hearing a case if prejudiced against any party with the essence are does it adds to the words any party it says with respect to a particular claim or claim a party must present evidence of actual bias in order to recuse an ale j mis put it was offered no such evidence in this case and even assuming the statistical evidence could be relevant that evidence provides no basis for  the district court thus acted fully within its discretion in denying this post as rep requests to recuse the l j no court has ever adopted plaintiff's theory and plaintiff is unable to identify a single circumstance in which a judge has been recused on the basis on which he is articulating additionally plaintiff invokes masterpiece kick shop which is in opposite for many reasons one of which obviously it concerned viewpoint discrimination but also that was not a recusal case and indeed the supreme court in reversing the colorado court of appeals merely ordered reversal it did not order any sense of recusal by the colorado civil rights commission essentially plaintiff offers no reason why this court need to stir the district court's decision can you help me with a couple of the statements made by your opposing counsel he suggests that the appeals counsel has already referred to the evidence of bias that he presented this source of just a testable evidence with respect to all these cases off has referred to the division of quality services you knowledge on that private or in some respects sealed or redacted but why should the referral be private as those are thirteen doesn't actually require a referral be made in every circumstance it's up to that appeals counsel's discretion any particular party may also file a complaint with the division of quality services claiming that the it was biased in a generalized way so both of those avenues would allow a party to seek relief before that internal part of that leave his client misapplying the law are not the reasons that the district court found the l g erred in this case i understand that too so that just goes to say in response to just make humans question that plaintiff still may get relief on her social security claim there's no reason to suspect the l g was biased in this case there were no statements made adversely to her specifically and even assuming that all of the statements that the plaintiff has called from these other decisions are legally invalid which rarely reassigned to another judge on remained so my question here is she gets another hearing on her merits correct correct so let's say she loses  that how would she be able to challenge the fairness or lack of bias with respect if she gets to that point because we don't know the answer  maybe if she got relief it would be moot i say yes other than there may be an internal investigation correct but if she loses for example on remand then what are her remedies because she's now she even in the decision of united states v johnson exceptionally inflammatory information that a district court judge might make against a particular party is no basis for recusal and again plaintiff points to no statements that were made during the ministry of proceedings that would suggest that the l g was biased in this case as the district court explained plaintiff theory rests on mere speculation there are simply some basis in plaintiff's mind that the it was biased against her and that is that theory on which he saw it is not actually based in any statement made against this particular claimant that she was but that the l g was biased part of the argument that i think the opposing counsel is making is that he had appeals counsel was required to consider the statistical evidence that he presented and that of course flies in the face in this case i'm not talking about this case but if we have a judge who is consistently ruling against the government or consistently ruling against defendant and it's just  indisputable patterns that may actually be grounds for a claim of a valid claim a bias i'm not saying that's the case here and now your honor to be sure plaintiff identifies no example in which an possible but again plaintive points to no example in which it has happened but the s s or thirteen is also fully consistent with the agency's regulations and that's what i was that's what i want yes absolutely so for one twenty c f r for a four point nine forty and the analogous regulation in the other portion of the disability social security regulations require the a l j and the appeals council to look solely to the facts of the claim and the claimant before it and this makes eminent sense for one incredibly private information is involved in any social security benefits determination so it would be it would involve until untold privacy implications for any particular party another claimants record in his or her own case second for an a to require the appeals council to consider records in other cases could invite incredible burdens on the agency and would actually slow benefits determination in many other cases both of these reasons only underscore why the agency has attempted to minimize the delay for other claimants claims processing as well as minimize privacy implications for those other claimants  fact the regulations themselves require any claimants consent before any record may be provided in a subsequent case a plaintive it is able to is unable to point to any claimants consent and provide in investigating other records arguing correct that regulations are on our restricts what the appeals council will review to that which the administrative law judge reviewed now it again the appeals council's review will be limited to the record before the administrative law judge h or herself and simply as just as this court will only consider the record before a district court on its appellate review it's perfectly analogous to the circumstance of the appeals council's for if you it will be limited to the information presented to the administrative law judge as pertains to that particular claimant now that's a sort of thirteen is that's fully consistent with that regulation and simply provides additional procedures by which claimants can proceed on generalized bias claims in the in the main as opposed to specific claims of bias of a specific l j so in that way it's perfectly consistent with the regulations and simply clarifies how the appeals council will consider  other information that does not pertain to that particular claimants claim for benefits ok if i get something if i can summarize your answer and you tell me if this is the essence of what you they they couldn't admit they were a little different from consider they were printed not my point being he's saying the sky will fall if it's admitted they actually admitted it but they're prohibited no he's saying the sky would fall if the appeals council were required to consider them as part of it is an administrative law judge will not conduct the hearing if he or she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party it goes on to say if you don't if you don't like the decision you can present your objections council as reasons why he new hearing should be held before another he'll just the u s s r changes any party to a particular party and i go through the particular done that i haven't it's what you want to hear your practice so you'll know the general don't you know if i'm asking you is there anything that would have prohibited you once you got that district court order simultaneously pursuing this appeal and also saying to the commissioner we need a different judge no i haven't done that but i will say and i think it's in what they call the how acts are the palms which are their internal things that when a case goes to