order or however that motion for protective order is not the protective order at issue in this case the protective order at issue in this case is in the district court record at document thirty four dash two page one hundred and nine with respect to the state action issue that disciplinary proceedings against an attorney kweisi criminal proceedings the the initiation of prosecution of disciplinary printed proceedings is clearly state action the issue presented in this case is whether a lawyer who initiate some prosecutes disciplinary proceedings in court is a state actor but we don't get there it's plain we don't get there on less you get  plaintiff's challenge to rule four dollars is on st amendment grounds i attempted to challenge four dollars on st amendment grounds in the state courts each of the challenges i made were dismissed by the court on subject matter jurisdictional grounds in the district court plaintiff did not challenge the adverse state court decisions themselves instead attack the state court ruling does it not it only attacks the it does not protect the state court rulings your honor what it what it needs to do is to address the state court rulings particularly the ruling of the appellate court because the appellate court has applied rule four two in a manner that the plaintiffs consider is unconstitutional judgment then it's it does not bar district court review of the constitutional challenge here there was no constant the st amendment challenge to four two percent to two or determined by the  so it's really not a challenge to the decision made by the appellate court it's a challenge to the to the application of the rule which is not binding precedent in the state  is based on the fact that that at the time that the district court action was filed the sole case was continued to be pending in the state superior court and in that action there was the protective order remained outstanding so the protective order continued to impede the exercise of my st amendment rights and my client's st amendment rights as long as it remained in effect now the sole action was settled after the district court action was filed but that's not relevant to the standing issue if i had standing when the action was filed i continue to the district court and the as i've indicated in in the reply brief the standing issue is not barred here not a binding precedent applicable to me and all other attorneys in the state so i don't think that that excuse  me i think that that really is the critical issue with respect to standing that there really can't be any doubt in my mind that that at the time that the action was filed in the district court only communication i had with these members of the of the board was a notice of claim claim a letter telling them that i intended to file a claim on behalf of my client against them individually and well i would suggest that this case is is really a case about rule four dollars and and its application by the by the connecticut court the rule is is i think it's widely understood that the rule is a difficult rule in application connecticut the connecticut works unfortunately itself as opposed to the state court judge in supplying with regard to iraq or at the court as well where they are prohibits federal courts from entertaining claims by state court losers complaining of injuries caused by stick or judgments and that's exactly what they d that it's quintessential wrecker i want to emphasize that this applies to all of its claims including the purported independent pencil challenges in count three hundred and forty nine and ten and that's really for two reasons st the claims in those commenced no your honor my understanding is that there was the superior court issued a protective order but there was no other sanction or just plain proceedings that were initiated and there are none standing at this time certainly the ok let's hear from your colleague certainly good morning honors made please the court i represent myself my law firm and attorney john mchugh scheme i want i would like to join in the arguments made by counsel for the judicial the senate's and i will not reiterate the similar arguments set forth in our brief but will stand on those as well however i would like to briefly discuss two related points this morning st i would like to take a step back and look at the broad picture  withdraw that counter claim he would sue them personally the discussion here is focused on rule four dollars but the power of the courts to issue a protective order to stop this kind of misconduct is a connecticut supreme court has held repeatedly inherent in the court's power to regulate proceedings before the court in connecticut this inherent authority is articulated in section thirteen desk five of our practice book which provides that the court may make any order which justice required to protect the parties until annoyance go around the court to go around counsel to attempt to interfere with and to undermine the attorney client relationship the appellant would torture these facts into a violation of their civil rights and an abuse of process if there was no violation and no abuse council acted well within the rules of the court acted comfortably within its inherent authority my nd point which is a matter of great concern and the appellants have in fact been able to make these frivolous claims repeatedly and have profited by them through a settlement with the insurer without rep or caution the real threat posed by these claims was captured by judge meyer when he described them as baseless claims brought by quote a trained lawyer against quote  defendants i have been trained to understand that so called floodgates arguments generally are ineffective but in this case it would not take a flood of cases like the present one to question if it can damage to our justice system if judges attorneys and insurers are permitted to become the targets of such misguided claims without repartition then the fundamental premises underlying the order of the functioning of our system are threatened and let there be no mistake all the high minded and hollow rhetoric you have heard about constitutional violations is a smokescreen for what is financially motivated cynical and vindictive conduct the obvious lack of merit in all of the talents claims the lies their true purpose throughout this process we have stood up for our clients ourselves and as best we could for the system but since i am not as attorney majola would have you believe a quote state actor or i cannot take action to vindicate the affront to our legal system and that is why i would conclude by respectfully submitting corporation or the constituents of the corporation at the time i sent the claim letter the appellate court applied for conclusive presumptions and applied rule four point two that it was it was not litigated below it was not litigated below the problems that arose here arose out of the appellate court's decision and application of the rule and there's been no review of the challenges to the appellate court's application of the rule by any court there's no judgment pertaining to the constitutional challenges to the appellate court's application of your arguments show precisely why this is when in the sentence before you complain about the appellate court ruling i have a great difficulty understanding what you are trying to do here i'm turning to challenge rule four point two both on court and i have standing to do so because that rule as applied by the appellate court continued to bar the exercise of my st amendment rights and my client's st amendment rights so while i understand that this is a complex case it in the final analysis this is seeking prospect of declaratory relief with respect to an unconstitutionally overbroad and vague ru the rule that as applied by the connecticut of appellate court may not now a binding precedent in the state of connecticut it is clearly unconstitutional the appellate court's application of the rule sanctions the application of conclusive presumptions to determine the existence of an attorney client privilege it also applies agency ratification doctrine that the retroactive aspect of agency ratification director to the formation of a lawyer client relationship in this case there was clearly no lawyer client relationship between tinley in the corporation at the time i sent that claim letter after i sent the claim letter tinl realize that he had not been hired by the corporation which is at the function dissolved nonprofit corp that it had no meeting of the board of directors sense prior to the initiation of the soul action tenley recognizes that and he then some in these putative board members to a ratification meeting to try to to try to then cure the fact that he had not been retained by the corporation he was retained by a member of the corporation who did not have the authority to retain him so this is the clear the clarity here when the law is looked at it is that it's impossible to sanction in  attorney for sending a letter to an unrepresented corporation which only becomes represented as a result of a ratification hearing or meeting by the board after the communication is made this punishes communication you make your argument that's that's not correct your honor because the it's mixed no it's not correct because i could i could not raise these issues below because this was the appellate court's gloss and appellate court sustained disappear court's finding that i violated four dollars it did so by the application of conclusive presumptions and this retroactive application of agency doctrine to the formation of a