you there are three errors in the judgment i'd like to focus on this morning st the judgment skipped over our real cause of action nd the judgment used the wrong test in considering sovereign immunity and there are the judgment found the conduct of attorneys marston controlled all the judicial power within that court for the purpose of manufacturing fraudulent judgments on behalf of their clients these judgments were enforceable in state and federal court there were many victims over many years now many of the facts underlying those allegations are admitted in defendant declarations below nevertheless the judgment skipped over the rico cause of action and found its army barred the entire action and this was well let me let me ask you a defendants would why would we have to get to the merits of the rico claim well because as a matter of law rico can't apply this opportunity and so so is that right reading could you bring a rico claim against the three of us if judge firemen in judd gregg said i they're cited that we for some corrupt reason to decide the case in favor of the other side never tell if i seems to me if there's immunity it extends to all federal statutory claims i think there's real question in this case where the immunity decision is correct but we don't get to the marriage like the district court we don't get to the so yes we go here never be defeated by sovereign immunity because a rico cause of action can never trade command the policy your property of a sovereign ok so why don't you tell us because i think it's the the centerpiece of this case why they just records immunity decisions were incorrect or quite simply the district court applied the wrong task and so sovereign immunity as i said it's very much a remedy vigils but you're really trying to recover and get a remedy against the sovereign the doctrine applies why doesn't that extension if you will apply to the claims in this case because the remedies in this case are exclusive to satisfy any judgement flowed from this case without even informing liquor and so if you look at maxwell or louis those cases all explicitly that you look to the remedy and only conduct and so here we have very specifically alleged that they were acting as attorneys in matters unrelated to probable case they were representing the c e o exonerates the court action has occurred they were advocating on  the complete absence of all jurisdiction neither of those would seem to be true here you have you're alleging that the court and the clerics were laboring under a conflict of interest but the conduct you're complaining about is ultimately judicial conduct i you're not seeking damages because they lobbied the state legislature or did these other things you're seeking damages as a result of as you say this use of the judicial court and its decisions in a bad way so it seems to me judge press his point is is it is a strong one the only the only really sets of these defendants what you're really saying is they damage me by corruptly getting together to make a judicial decision that would be enforceable against me and hurt me well st of all i don't think that we're putting the focus on that traditional decision but if you want to look within the context of the act can point to judge marston hiring people he knew were attorneys working for blake i hope you're not seeking damages against judge marston for hiring those people if those people were improperly fired i  the state court ruled against you you appealed and then you brought this suit so the company brought this suit and we felt that and you and  able to hear me ok we can hear you five good thank you i will begin good morning and may please the court this case just the court an opportunity to articulate under  the way we can tell whether or not a suit is against the sovereign as opposed to the individual is largely through the remedy sought if the remedy is damages how does that compare to put aside t sensitive to not allow it officials to be with immunity and the impact that might have on the internal workings of the tribal government even if the only remedy was was damages in this case  that lewis preserved that part of maxwell because in the nd paragraph of lewis there's a very stark all then as we hold that in a suit brought against a tribal employee in his individual capacity the employee not the tribe is the real party in interest in the tribe sovereign immunity is not implicated and then they are to put a finer point on it the court said basically the same thing at the end of the opinion or a vice chair of the trial or for dissipating tribal government decision making or be appointed to serve in effect as tribes attorney general the court has an opportunity here to articulate under massless remedy may seek money from somebody else to cover their costs just the way to be a fact if your insurance company might cover it doesn't mean that it's a suit against the insurer or the sovereign it's on its face  a suit against the individuals it doesn't care where the money comes from if he wins he'd be perfectly happy if it came out of the defendant's pockets so why is it why does this get transformed into a suit against the s judge but our job in this case is to figure out with a reason right in saying that so the fact that he said it at a twelve b six stage doesn't help me get past what lewis seemed to say which is that a suit against somebody in their individual in the state court that it's they these the court of appeal states beatings any outcome of this case and they declined the question is whether or not they're entitled to sovereign immunity and so even if we apply the maxwell test how we said that they're acting as lawyers on behalf of the tribe if a judgment is entered against them will understand but my question is when somebody say it what the case law seems to say if it's still alive after louis is that if you're still a stance of ways for money damages but the result of it will be to impact the sovereign the ability of the sovereign to govern itself then perhaps it can be treated as a case justify sovereign immunity so my question is how does a money damages suit against lawyers impact the tribes ability to govern itself but when you're dealing with situations that go to the heart of the tribes position been guarding how it operates it's trial court or and what you instruct his lawyers to do within that trial or i sovereign immunity did not include them and as saying they were judicially immunity you in i don't know that is before us but do you argue do you contend that your clients are deserving of some you argue that below on behalf of your clients not no you are not directly we are views on ok ok that was my question thank you if you had mentioned that part of the lewis opinion suggested that and other fairly senior officials of the tribe and the argument could have been made exactly as as you make it here that that would have impacted the tribes functioning but nonetheless there was an individual capacity suit sovereign immunity i think you've answered judge press this question then you've got about forty half minutes over low it's our fault not yours so unless one of my other colleagues has a question for you we'll move on to mr smith that was perpetrating this rico scheme and great case for that is the sparks which holds that those who you know convince a judge to correctly use his jewish jurisdiction do not share in judicial immunity and so i would urge the courts to look at