california penal code section ninety four and i think ninety five and seven working together make it illegal for any judicial officer to seek any reward or promise for doing any judicial a trial started they never reached the marathon that because they said you know the first attempt to preclude the judge to recuse a judge was was inappropriate i agree with that but when the judges and he came in there the second time he  said you know we will grant you this we bargain that was there was a totally distinct and separate thing and so they're already been hearing on the recusal we'd already heard that it was denied there were some new things that had come down since then i would have start the procedure all over again we were back before the same judge and so we said let's just go to trial on this issue as you know we don't have any more practical remedies we're here to gain trial it's time for the trial to start what would be the most going to have more on no i mean than and i ask you wanted from him what are the damages as even though the plea damages would be minimal but there would be damage just he had to go to jail anyway he had to go to jail anyway but if he hadn't got the plea bargain the judge would have dealt fairly with him during the i just want to make one point i think the justice that understand my position every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to protect the burden of proof required to convict our federal right that we had that was not respected by this particular judge here telling him we were denied that right to due process by virtue of the standard that i just mentioned a result my client suffered damages and this is a parallel remedy it's not any an independent remedy certainly head of state remedy as well as attack the conviction and so forth there were reasons why he chose not to do that perhaps financial reasons and other reasons he did but he did not address you should properly in that motion in that motion which we can provide to the court he stated the judge should be refused because he is a party to a lawsuit brought by a criminal defendant under california state law that is beyond just that and you're saying those issues were presented those issues were properly presented they were certainly had the opportunity presented and they could have been presented f issue and it had been denied then there's the argument that he had the ability on direct route you his conviction presumably to raise this issue how would you  but for causation the humphrey as this court asked the question heck the humphrey the criminal slaying of slash appellate suit on a ninety three due process he said i'm not challenging my custody or conviction or even causation term and if you do that and you necessarily imply that the sentence or conviction is improper then unless you show that that sentence and conviction was invalidated your part in this case he's that's not abrogate tradition unity in fact the united states supreme court case of tennessee sparks the allegations or a judge entered into a conspiracy took up right and issued any legal injunction but the supreme court a side of things when you're really concerned about is that he use using his judicial power carrying out its fake conditional function to influence the outcome in a federal lawsuit which is beyond state power now that's arguably distinguishable from taking money to exercise one's lawful state jurisdiction but here is using the authority would become a nontraditional act because it improper erroneous that cannot be said to be normally performed by a judge if we look at this i'm just saying the judge asked for consideration which is basically what the allegation is clearly that's improper but he asked for consideration in conjunction with a matter then pending in from the judge where the people have come to him on that matter then pending before the judge that makes it a doing is changing what actually is but in the end it is still x it is still give me something i'm not entitled to and i will give you something in return bright was done in conjunction with that request and therefore makes the judge immune from civil damages also helped me humphrey bars the so because appellant has not shown that while he's shown he has been convicted he has not shown that conviction has been