its first purpose with loudness your talk about hearing into the mike the fifth and fourth amendment prohibits deprivation of life liberty or property without due process of law the supreme court cases on judicial disqualifications are guides to ensure fairness because a fair trial in a fair trial you know is a basic requirement of due process fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases but our system of laws has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness this is not dicta due process requires disqualification whenever the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be constitutional constitutionally colorable due process concerns situations other than those related to the culinary interest to a rose as prosecutor and judge acting judges who refused to disqualify themselves in my case judge o'neil and the san diego county bench disqualified themselves because of bias toward me sixteen months later the and redid reinstated themselves to assure my conviction prohibited from ever acting as a judge in that case judge just feels involvement gave rise to an unacceptable risk of ethical bias which so endangered the appearance of neutrality that his participation in the case must be prepared if the guarantee of due process is to be implemented freeman you know as you're here in court arguing are you still under sentence of supervised release no that ended in in williams the court also held that unconstitutional failure tree to use constitutes a structural error that is not a minimal harmless error review citing bucket versus the united states the language that due process requires  disqualification the supreme court down three million dollars to be a rare occurrence and exceptional enough to require disqualification the dollar amount was an extreme that in your case the san diego judges was because they thought you had done something that you did not do they can well that was you know that they they reaches themselves because they could not be fair to me because they thought i had done something but everything by jury right yes but jack judge judge on the hill and you know he was a factor in it and so was my  ineffective counsel and the the the evidence was in the in the trial was different than the others they had before it kind of all shifted and there was nobody nobody was well you might want to wait to see were two streets is ok good morning your honour's may please the court christopher of usually got to be attorney general on behalf of the absolutely missed dream is absolutely correct that under the constitution what is required is a fair trial in a fair tribunals before a fair judge and under the constitution disqualification is required when there is a probability that is so high that the judge is actually biased that it becomes constitutionally intolerable this freeman has cited all of that correctly and judge reinhardt you're absolutely correct that the judges o'neill here did initially recuse himself on the basis of that allegation that ms freeman had been stocking a fellow judge but then later they discovered that that allegation proved to be false there was never any such activity whatsoever so the original basis for why judge o'neill had recused himself was gone and there was nothing beyond that allegation that supports conclusions that the probability of him being actually biased was constitutionally intolerable there's nothing on this record suggesting that judge o'neill was biased against ms freeman in fact the district court in its findings it think that in this case there is jurisdiction because freeman did file her hey this petition before she was released from custody and then there is also that collateral consequence of her attorney license so i do think that this court continues to maintain jurisdiction she points to nothing in the record no rulings no evidentiary rulings nothing that would suggest the judge will try to sway the jury in any way shape or form  was not constitutionally entitled to preside that would be on that would be needed as that's correct if judges were constitutionally disqualified that would result in a structural error and reversal would be required but because because constitutional disqualification is not required here there is no reason for this court to reverse and ultimately the disposition should be that the district court decision be affirmed on statutes judge o'neil should never have gone back and been reinstated but ultimately the the judicial disqualification statutes that states impose are not of the at that they don't define the due process requirements the supreme court has said in capitals recently and also reiterated in williams that the states and the judicial ethics canons can build upon the protections that are afforded by the constitution by adding additional layers of protection which is what california has done unfortunately here the state did fail to follow the its own requirements but that issue ultimately was procedurally defaulted because there was not then the additional follow through with the that even though there was that state law violation that does not mean that there was also a constitutional violation and additionally state law procedural violations don't really informed the fundamental question which is was this judge biased against mr freeman just because there was a violation of state procedural rules does not tell us that judge o'neil was actually biased against her nor does it suggest that there was a probability of bias that was constitutionally intolerable and so ultimately there was no there was no constitutional deprivation here and this court we would ask respectfully should affirm the judgment of the the safety of his friend can you point to things in the trial that happened are there would be evidence about actual bias anytime he had to say something favorable to my is very low monotone that the jury could not pay attention to or really believe in here when i was testifying on my own behalf he interrupted me and criticised me and his total attitude towards me the entire time which was very critical and him demeaning and dismissive to your represented by counsel however i was who always who didn't do anything unless judge to do it he was very elderly at the time but he was still sharp but he when i had a list the motions he hit the judge on the i would say if you do to join in this motion and then  because of they thought because some new misdemeanors were going to be and then when i bailed out of five hundred thousand he raised it to a million and said well that's us now i can tell its whole attitude towards me was biased it may not be reflected in the record which is why it's not