inexpensively intertwined would take place but in this case since we're not we're not looking to looking at the case to overturn it's looking for we're not looking to re litigate the position of a case right now this is a away issue and if we were seeking to appeal it we would have filed an appeal to the u s supreme court in this case because it's an independent claim which would be an exception for any way that was affirmed in the exxon case we feel we have standing to go into the u the court system because that's where the problem was and in the superior court to go back and have similar recusal rules or for i mean i imagine if imagine a world where every if the judges are accused you could just take your case to federal courts we wouldn't like that no no i understand that and with the reason why our federal court because we feel we have a claim under nine hundred eighty three an independent claim and that's how we get there as a side matter i would be not inclined to go into the state of pennsylvania because that's where the case effectively against two it's a great even though they're not names of the complaining regarding the judges and not some judges not recusing the south and that may be part of the problem would be hard for them to judge unself here let's focus on the complaint how do you get state action here everything th everything that you're alleging goes to statements and conduct on the part of the judges it doesn't give you the nexus of the private parties to the state actor judges to give you and they think it's because of the action and because the law doesn't or the way i took a look of action otherwise there's no constitutional tort agreed and for the mother of law the way i understood it to be is when you're when you're a wolf or participate in joint action with the state and it would be color of law and a classic example of that would be when a private party in this case agreement the factual evidence that you're making don't necessarily go to an agreement they simply go to certain judges if you will all the judges having an interest in not taking off roader because when they leave the looking at it right now we came upon new evidence and the new evidence was brought forward after a case was dismissed and during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration it came from a deposition tom rider in unrelated case ask you one thing and i don't want you to lose you new evidence that creates now sufficient pleading for conspiracy or did you have the conspiracy played in the first and second amendments i believe we allege conspiracy but we didn't properly allege agreement we don't have sufficient facts and i would take your i don't you mean you have a better case now with that additional well with your facts we had a legal conclusions and we felt we had support some facts to support it but the courts in the fiel the arbitration firms he wants move on he wants to get involved in the private arbitration business that's completely natural what i believe in is unnatural and illegal is when you're not intending to retire and you rule for a party in a case and then you put them on notice why you intend to remain on the bench and on tenants who retire you put them on notice that you're going to come see them for a job one day the fact that you're putting somebody on notice when you have no intention to leav ruling for time rather than approaching him for a job they were their vile violating numerous usual canons of conduct it was the integrity of the court appearance of bias they had no idea how roger would react and in fact rather hasn't acted negatively about it he did he didn't spell it he didn't come back to the judges and state from the best of my knowledge and nowhere in the records as a cello it he didn't come back and state you should be doing this you're crossing the line you're putting into szell careers you know and  the appearance of bias the judges are really staking a professional reputation what happens if it gets out and word spreads the judge's reputation your reputation is why i feel i have a fair shake i think the defendants are entitled to something a little clearer than that and i think that's one of the purposes more precise pleading because you really have to know what you're going to defend against and i think what you're saying presents some problems i'm looking for in a case like this in agreement between the judges in this case whereby they agree to make they will rulings and be half of the people that appear before the arbitrator exchange for a job later on i gather that's the conspiracy that you're constructing your plea as well sell it it was it's very hard to prove that sue people are going to come out that unless you get them on tape tell you something if if we if we were to agree with you we would essentially have to disagree with all of the pennsylvania state court decisions in this case which said that there was no misconduct no deceit no wrongdoing no fraud by any of the actors that you now have as defendants so we would essentially have to go back and say that was a and there was misconduct there was deceit there was fraud there were quid pro quos i'm going to rule in your favor or or prospect of a job later on that is accurate i don't see it  way if we were looking for reviewing rejection of the state court decision then i would agree with that but we're not seeking review on rejection by this court making a decision allowing this case to move forward that we could test it but you're claiming a violation of due process on the basis of what happened in the pennsylvania state courts but from my understanding is the state court judgments would still stands unless the we went in there and had tried to have it all modified it would have which is not something we're looking to do right now we believe that this case within the district court stands on its own i see my time is up if i just jurisdiction and we can we can hear what the courts of the supreme court said in exxon is that the record feldman doctrine bars claims brought by state court losers complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments that's from the exxon opinion page two eighty five not of this an independent claim well that's not what the supreme court said because what they said what happened there is that that was a that was a separate claim they weren't claiming in exxon that the court was biased they weren't challenging the judgment and seeking to reverse or review the judgment this court neither this court nor the district court can give the opponents the release they want without determining as judge went just pointed out that the pennsylvania state courts were wrong he can't prevail in less the pennsylvania courts were wrong well that so he can prove evidentiary presentation is some of it will happen that most of it but it's a different evidence your presentation but it doesn't and it had the claim has different elements or may have different some different elements but he can't prevail a jury couldn't find for him or a finer fact could not find for him without finding that pennsylvania case courts were wrong and so it puts this federal court error and that the allegations didn't give rise to any problem that i was in their term on the part of the parties before it when you've got this very broad disclosure requirement which would seem to me to clearly require that these kinds of more cases to be presented in federal court i mean isn't that the new test well i think the new test is the one i recited from which is from the opinion which is that it bars claims brought by state court losers damages because the condition of damages you then have to show that the the state quit proceeding was wrong it was not wrong there's no damages there's no tort the nieces case in this kind of where you're going with this right and if i could if i could bring another decision to the court issue of jurisdiction because the merits become important also right and that this trick judge in this case dismissed the third amended complaint and but he did so after concluding that there would be prejudice to the defendants i mean i was looking for reasoning why it was prejudicial and i didn't find any so i i'm wondering if we have sufficient reasoning on the record to dispose of this case or not should you argue that there was prejudiced you we did not get to respond to the third amended complaint which was dismissed so there was no nothing on the record we had just seen that you were prejudiced by the third amended complaint had argued we were we would argue that in response to the first and not wrong i don't know if it's wrong i think the i think the real is wrong because there's no reasoning there has to be reasoning to dismiss a complaint on the basis of prejudice but i think it's certainly prejudicial to the peleus to have to keep or spine to these claims and we had  below that they participated in any kind of agreement or conspiracy there's no allegation of any acts by them under its own twamley that would be to rise to a plausible belief that there was a conspiracy that they didn't take any action  the panel was earlier asking mr weiner what evidence or was it mr ryder took any actions i agree there's no evidence in this thread or took any actions that would point to a conspiracy there's even less evidence that fox rothschild or any of its attorneys took any actions that was fine but there was there evidence that the judge is involved in the state court proceedings that were reviewing the claims that were made based on the arbitration or any of those judges mentioned in the complaint as part of the conspiracy he did not identify them by name or any judges mention by name in the complete not that i'm aware so we don't know who the actors in the conspiracy are who it is alleged  may favorable decisions in order to get jobs later on now i mean there's there's you know there's the deposition testimony where he said that they they did not approach him he did not approach them there's simply no as judges are mentioned as a  or no depending on whether the judge knew and then the next question was that they and it's being used to who are first but there was no follow up as to which judges approached him which judges said anything to him there's no allegation about any specific judge is it this is sort of thing week he was playing out all the allegations are directed at judges there's no allegations that mr ryder did anything that's consistent with a conspiracy there's no allegation certainly that fox ross child or any of its attorneys do anything consistent with a conspiracy the only thing foxtrot's child and it's attorneys did worse defend the claims and as the united states supreme court said in the sparks case seeking relief in the courts filing briefs and asking for rulings is not  it's not it's not state action which gets me the last twenty minutes there why isn't there state action here if the i mean just on the basis of allegations that there are state judges who i to the place where you can't get in for a deal that's what that's what he's arguing and then his remedy is to keep i mean is to keep going up the pennsylvania courts and ultimately the united states supreme court but you can't use the federal courts as the end run of around the state court system because you think it's corrupt just like to dress one or two points on roboto case impacts on on page two seventy three and i read when we're talking about the independent action of the independent claim it was twelve fifty seven stop a district court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction simply because the party attempts to litigate in federal court a matter previously listed in the page to seventy three to ninety three q it's too easy right i'm sorry go ahead that's ok because the party state court actions we're not seeking review for error of law by the judges or going in to redo the elements there or we could get past the jurisdiction issue in the state action issue the procedural issues and where we can get the merits of your we to do that the point was was just made about how you constructed the conspiracy and you didn't mention any judge by name you didn't you didn't link any particular judge to a conspiracy so and you didn't state where the conspiracy occurred in terms of the conspiracy what the judges were supposed to do in exchange for the prospect of future employment how do you get past these new pleading requirements so that you would avoid a twelve b six dismissal the way out the way i would approach would be this right now we don't know the exact names there are many judges the rules and different panels the rules in the two came before you alleged in your pleading you must have some idea that the that there was something wrong occurred by this group of individuals here they are you should have sufficient information that really give you that of their position is that the way for the names of judges that are that was in our deposition i was an unrelated explain why why oppose why can't we see that why can't we see the deposition testimony or consider it oh i would i want to bring that into the case but at this late point what they were not doing is they were opening up with eight pages now one page and i thought i would have the opportunity to address that i would by all means like to address it it's going to be addressed if we move forward because that's important evidence but right now i took a few statements and use that in the record marsh they put in our  conspiracy which i see is this they were all will for participants in willful participants in the joint action with the state when i say a willful participant i quoted to a bank robbery rather an easier options when in robbed the you just can't throw up your hands and say we just file complaints we have a responsibility and that is referring to one it's just his opinion and you're the bank robbery now he was talking here is more closely resembling this if you look at the manager behind the other manager behind the desk not near the alarm button watches someone come in there's a demand note rob the bank leave manager stands there you're going to the manager is part of the robbery because he had knowledge it was there was an understanding there were something in place that they knew that if they delivered the signal for him for right or any of your options benefits how would they know that because right or never it's not alleged that writer did was said take your those are to cure me there's nothing like that in there and so trying to wonder how you get to the second part of the conspiracy since we've got a conspiracy where one can spare is a ring with himself or herself but he wouldn't that he can't get a grip and you've got unilateral action on the part of state actors who are immune while the way i look at it is true for one writer didn't discover what either he didn't just tell the judge just cut him off stop i don't want to hear this i don't want you're crossing over the line you should not be talking to me about this you approached the judge the judges approached ryder after the ruling and that's what's so disturbing it gives the appearance of bias it taints the decision if every judge i let me put this way i ask each and every one of you if you had a rule if you rule to move forward to take discovery because without the opportunity to take discovery we're never going to now and this decision will remain saying it and it shouldn't be that way the should be transparency with the courts over looking for the opportunity to go forward at the worst there is nothing there maybe nobody would disclose anything maybe well everyone would keep silent a successful conspiracy is when no one's of old is anything and you know no conspiracies but in this case here the judges have done enough they've crossed additional boundaries they've given the appearance of  as well because they all knew about it all you know is this for ninety three we have certain people that will willful participants they were all where if they all receive the benefit by the judges rules and then they went to roger roger stated without any problem that these judges i'm certain judges that rule before him have approached him for jobs after he ruled form i have many many problems with that is the appearance of bias he questions the integrity of the  that you have to look at the unlawful parallel conflict this is just one judge to do this it could be wrote it judge maybe didn't do the right thing it's alleged that it's more than one judge i fail to believe the more than one judge the more better it gets under it going from with that very had done something to give them the reasonable belief that there's going to be a quick well we've a bike in my complaint i put in that there was any type of advanced motivation or any type of influence that they think they would receive would be equated to bribery whether they bribe somebody with cash whether they bribe somebody with the promise or the knowledge that they could get a job by tak yeah is fits right within pennsylvania's definition of bribery there was some type of influence i'm not exactly i believe i know what it is i believe if we had the opportunity to dispose the crack parties will find more in the deposition while you're correct something to suggest to the judges would be a favorable would book of that would be bribery but again that's not here we've got allegations of judges doing something which was improper rather is kind of a passive ea judges coming to him that's with the legs and it's just me and you this happened in terms of favorable decisions by state judges isn't it telling that appellate judges more than one judge affirmed the common court please judge and the supreme relationships which august but the question is when they become a proper judge should not be coming to him for jobs if they have no intention of leaving the bench i state it's are you suggesting that this you can have jobs if they do have intentions absolutely if you intend to leave the bench ones that way by all means i would expect if you want to stay in the practice of law you would go to another law firm you would maybe get involve with a d r that's perfectly natural even if you rule for the other side you still haven't a reason contemplating is some it's very movement in the future of leaving the bench and i start getting my ducks in a row by letting folks know that i'm thinking about leaving the bench and some underclothes time and then sit in on a case involving that very wise and  i mean that is proper is if i don't know as if i internally is a bunch of times when i would say me or i would say it's improper because if you intentions of going to a specific firm and put them on notice you surely cannot be impartial because this was a very he basically affirms it and executed it and it was all not true this was a how the divorce case and every one of those points though repeatedly i mean i hear you saying it but this is kind of just a repackage of what's happened before he called wiley from what i heard it was a long conversation and he told them so many words what don't you get you would never win against roger do you know who he is they were not rule against them that's very powerful to hear your honor and then w i mean it's not that surprising that a lawyer in philadelphia relationships would say that about time or that does not mean that all that is anything other than one person's view and the only thing that backs that up is the statement from the deposition and we've discussed why that may have problems in terms of state action i think really real time is up and really in mr kind of was very good about watching his like we let you have a little more time but