judge luke's lawsuit arises from a ruling made by the standing committee reference to canon five a three day three that ruling was incorrect and most importantly violated judge loafs first amendment right of free speech this case has ramifications far beyond just look it has around patients for any judicial candidate who runs in the state of nevada  an argument or i did it the five cases that i'm prepared to deal with the river feldman and those five cases might as well do so now that's probably the first hurdle that we need to address the five cases that the honorable court gave me all of those cases are distinguishable from what we have in the standing committee when we're talking about the standing committee it's very important to look at the example in the state of nevada we have a judicial commission that deals with bar complaints those proceedings are in fact quote equivalent to a court due process takes hold and that proceeding what we have here the state and not to bring it over here to federal court in this case there was no such thing as a state machine because we had no right to an appeal there was no court of appeal and that's those five cases that you give me to look at every one of those cases allows for court i don't believe that you could get it i don't believe that the court would entertain it's because the standing committee is nothing more than an advisory committee it is not deemed to be a court or a judicial proceedings that as you're well aware the  when he has a person mehmet right to make the statements that he made in this case i can't believe that he has a first amendment right to say something in an administrative setting is a conviction absolutely because  are rules of the statutes authorizing their creation that does not have a yes or no the word conviction does not in fact it doesn't apply it would be like no it doesn't apply it doesn't apply you have formal charges you have a prosecuting attorney you have violations of thoughts is not a conviction is it is a conviction it absolutely is a conviction and that's splitting hairs to hold that against judge loop to say that he used the word conviction proceeding that is of prosecution use this prosecutor uses formal charges and a violation and that's and the second the picket it just look and say that he used the word convicted and therefore he was doing something that was a lie is inappropriate in violate which she impeached not you know what what what would have been required to cost who did an impeachment i'm not real sure but she was going to be removed from office right when we have a constitution provides that judicial officers can be removed from briefs you know it's a trial unlike in like by comparison to the standing committee it's a closed hearing you have lay people making making decisions because the standing committee standing committee is the committee that reviewed judge look ye between the judicial commissions proceeding and an impeachment under the nevada constitution i'm not sure about how can she be removed from office under a proceeding unless it's authorized by the nevada constitution which if you've got i office under the nevada constitution and that would be a conviction even though it does not result in criminal sanctions so i'm very curious as to what the difference between an impeachment proceeding which would have to be the result in remov conviction and what happened to judge fine she wasn't impeached she was actually convicted she went through the commission and were far more charges frank criminals the special prosecutor  was convicted according to your definition and again the word conviction doesn't necessarily mean criminal conviction and that's the problem with this ad hoc committee the standing committee there's no right to review they make a decision it's late people make an issue making determinations on constitutional issues and what they say is final and the story but i don't get what's happened to the judge as a result of this finding it's simply their opinion about the problem his ad that he did something wrong and so what i mean if the well if their opinion it's not a nice ad they can say it's not a nice theory he can say it is a good ad you know that's why it's a free country and well but but but it goes to his first amendment right of free speech he shouldn't have to do that you shouldn't seconds and i'll take but it's very important again that we keep in mind that there between the judicial commission and the standing committee the standing committee is not a chorus equivalent again it's closed hearings there's no proceedings for purposes of any appeal th just look until he was actually elected to office is that correct that's correct it's only a judge that's correct and think market take action what kind of action they could say the judge look leiden lawyers can't lie and therefore you know you could be suspended you could be appeal so if you know we cannot necessarily be said that there is no avenue of appeal then you've got a supreme court hears risks on a number of different issues including first amendment prior restrain issues and i mean there's absolutely no reason why they could not have directly appeal you have a recorded case where the nevada supreme court undertook a review of this particular committee no we don't your honor and one of the problems with that is because this is actually one of th yes they would your honor and the other of the other issue that i would raise in the buckley case that you provided for in your june third order which stands for the proposition that in these judicial discipline type cases if there is no avenue of review in essence if that co decision is final then it's considered the highest in the decision of the highest court of the state and they can directly feel to the united states supreme court we will do that that situation is far more analogous to the situation at hand then you know then then his attempts to d in district court if there is no if that isn't in the standing committee rules do not say you cannot take an appeal from this so he could he could seek his remedies in other places within the state courts and it might have been if they might have been used if the law had provided that because then it would make the advisory but as as you pointed out towards the end of this argument to the extent that they want that they want to pursue it if he doesn't comply with it and he wants to take it if they want to take it to a disciplinary level then they can in fact refer it to the commission and you get full discipline collateral stoppel sort of way i'm a little surprised to hear you say that the findings by the group that gives advice would be binding on the group that would conduct the trial but i did it in in my opinion and take it for what it's worth i do not believe that the power to go into court and force its determination it's my impression that they what they would be able to do would be to forwarded on for additional discipline based on his failure to follow through to comply with the recommendation on the recommendations but the opportunity to apply record feldman in a variety of different cases i particularly those that's deal with as applied constitutional challenges like the one that he's making as well as in situations where you had a board of bar examiners at the person was speaking a review of decision you have not yet to the best of my knowledge have the opportunity to grapple with the issue of rigor feldman in a judicial discipline type setting but this court has a lot of guidance from the lower federal courts as well as courts of a number of different circuit is seeking relief from or of you from the correctness of that decision the worker feldman part of the jurisdiction of this court that's basically the scenario that we have before us today and the only two exceptions to that scenario are that general rule if you will are when the they are telling is making a general constitutional challenge or worthy appellant is arguing that the entity is not an arm or agent have the supreme court because i think the second issue is a little bit more important than the first because i think we can concede that he's not making a general constitutional challenge his challenge is one that's very fact laden and and is it deals with the application of the canon to his particular situation i would say that in the cases that was tried by the court in its june third order as well as the bar which is an arm or agent of the supreme court it's under the exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court there are four judges which are pointed directly by the supreme court and every district and senior judge in the state of nevada is a member of the unfair election practices committee members to the panel and standing committee the committee officers are all parts part of the nevada commission on judicial discipline and the commission as conceded by mr watkins is a part of the judicial department the procedures the standing committee state to be honest with you judge by the i do not know that but i would say that in looking at the cases that were cited by the court in its june third order the nevada c n n commission is clearly much more like the judicial discipline body that existed in the thomas case then prigs sample the one that existed in the scott case which to my knowledge in the cases that we've looked at on this judicial discipline issue it's the only case that stands for the proposition that when you know a state has a very strong interest in and that brings us back to the same same issue which is that he's basically asking you to substitute your judgment for the judgment of nevada's judicial commission or the standing committee on judicial ethics and campaign practices in determining whether or not that was a knowing this representation and i under still had a right he still had a right of review to the baddest supreme court he still had a right of review to the united states supreme court the fact that he chose to circumvent that and not take it any further within the state proceedings it basically means that in these types of proceedings when the bell certainly nothing procedural and or that you know the judicial commission or in the standing committee that would say that you have a certain period of time now if i was steve if i was being challenged what i would say is that because this is a scenario where they are you're in the midst of a campaign and to appeal yet on page twenty five in their brief they said the standing committee rules are not provide for any appeal our other review of the panel determination also very so that shows you that they knew when they wrote their brief there was no any review in order to have quote the rockefeller reply you have to have due process at these particular proceedings the process was not administered in this case therefore rocker's fellman does not in fact apply in arresting neither mr loop nor the opposition when we piled the lawsuit ever even discuss the record feldman this came about as a result of district judge judge as rough who started talking about the river feldman everyone we all fig you know we could hear that you have the case heard and actually judge jazeera says that he was going to address quote the canon as applied to mr loop in reference to the word convicted yet he never did also it's important to note that and as justice by be pointed out which i was unaware i knew that the word convicted could be used other than a criminal context but i didn't know what you were saying about the constitution so clearly it shows that again the standing committees decision incorrect and it violates his right to free speech we can't allow that to happen we cannot allow that to happen in the case and since he did not get due process we must go to the federal system and ask your question operate ok thank you for your argument can thank you very much and i apologize for raising my voice but earlier on mr wahid indicated you have problems picking things up and i do get a little excited because i really do love the law and i've been in my