a final state court judgment to the district court however like while rick or feldman has the world of the courts and counsel for many years we've achieved clarification with the exxon mobile case in two thousand  case that that you filed you're not asking for damages right as not against the judge as your honor may not asking for an injunction not asking yes correct you're asking for a declaratory judgment we're asking for declaratory relief in one of the declared one of the one aspect of the declaratory judgment that you're asking for is a declaration that the plaintiffs property and rights are held by them free and clear because the sale occurred when all this judicial misconduct happened right yes so if you get that let's say you get that as a matter of state law procedure you can make collateral attack on the judgment so you're going to take it back and use that to undo the state court judgment right that would be the attempt that would be the attempt now there's also of state court law that cited i hall case to the effect that california has always allowed it collateral attack on a judgment on an independent claim that there was extrinsic fraud with regard to the  means inability to properly present your claim and haven't heard correctly by an impartial tribunals took the word extrinsic out of it extends it means something external in other words somebody submits a false affidavit or bribes a witness or does something like that well is that this  wasn't extend to q basically saying the judges were biased you know you are were saying more than that if we have the complaint alleges that essentially one of the judges the trial court judge was bribed was was was there was some type of quid pro quo that occurred and that the other judges essentially the went along with it so we have an extra six factor that's played in the complaint which is that this that the trial judge had contact had some of the arrangement with one of the adverse parties that led to the underline motivations for the bias that we posit that the trial judge in particular did receive some type of unit remuneration or compensation in order to carry out what is the eulogy he got well we believe it was that well it's the complaint is more specific in the sense that it alleges that it's our position that he that this judge did receive something beyond just a promise or a hope and an enhan you know it's quite a lengthy complaint right right there's a number of paragraphs where where this is  talking about yes that's one in that sense that's not bravery that's like he did it because he thought he might get something in the future that's different from a bribe come on that's on the serious argument as well i believe it's a serious argument your honor i'm i mean that the question is at what point do we have evidence to allege of bribery we have this this situation where the judge has been disqualified the facts are laid out he knows he's disqualified he's on vacation he takes the place rapidly disqualified he apparently determine that he was improperly where you saw there was never any determination on the merits of any type how it is that that he became pre qualified and we briefed in the in the in the complaint we cite some of the law that regard regarding the disqualification there's never been any authority provided and just as a matter of what we think is as serious a circumstantial evidence that makes no sense that he's on vacation when he the subject of a state court appeal right i mean i should say i am not a big fan of strickler atory judgment rather than a request that we ourselves avoid it is that is the only difference but your essential and the and the evidence of the of one of the most of the evidence  why you believe that there is a conspiracy against you is that the the the fact they made such a big legal mistaken your view so that really is a review of these impossible to decide this case without reviewing the legal judgments in the state court right are the the the way the case played out in terms of big ignoring those claims in terms of ignoring evidence and the fact that that there was under the overholser case and other california supreme court authority that there that's where you should read in state court we should be determining whether there you are right or wrong about the early vote whether it was a legal well your honor again that's the legal heir and i think i'm out of time but that's the legal area that we that we have challenged and we have an there was this very fundamental legal or which they would have made if they weren't in cahoots well that's correct your honor but wherever wherever you are there would be a challenge an independent claim or a challenge collateral attack on justices or judges been biased you would think at the root of that there would be incorrect judgment incorrect rulings that precipitate the independent claim and that's what's happened here i i wish you had actual proof separate tracks here two to the the wrongdoing if you will on the part of the judges first there is as you say the the ignoring the most subtle principle that you can't enforce illegal contracts but then we get to the situation with the trial judge where this this property is extremely valuable property as to which there's a t r o pending to stop the sale in front of another judge or this judge has been disqualified the trial judge is on vacation he's not near the courtroom suddenly he calls in and takes back the case on which he's been disqualified takes back the case four hours later the deed for this illicit fraudulent sale records the timing is uncanny and you know my experience most the time judges case settles whatever they're happy to be judges want to see their case load less and make the case go away this judge calling in from vacation takes my colleague state that worker feldman does not apply because there is extrinsic fraud however as your honour's have mentioned or the questions i suppose that you directed to him relate to weather extremes that fraud is with regard to a state court judgement or is as was alleged in this complaint alleged fraud that the judge is somehow in gauged in issuing their rulings when you're talking about the judge's rulings as being the fraud it's that's my understanding the complaint i understand it's a fine difference but it is a distinct difference but the actual allegations in the complaint and looking at the record volume three page two ninety nine up to ninety eight their complaint with regard to my clients states that several times play disappeared old or petitioned judge if you're saying the judges and trying or if you're trying to to affect the validity of the judgment as opposed to directly as opposed to complaining about the private parties who are the adversaries in the case  n that's the line but it doesn't work all that clearly here because and there it appears to me that there are some cases in which there may be some cases in which the judges are the defendants and the judgment is being attacked but still aren't it's not just fact to appeal exactly the difference that i see is that if you are suing  judge for you for fraud and you're not trying to attack the judgment so if you are so you have a separate lawsuit because of judicial actions and somehow judicial because her and i said it would be traditional immunity there is no such case there is judicial immunity and therefore you can't get damages you can't get damages that's that's correct but if you're attacking the judgment even if you're saying that dismissing the lawsuit or finding in favor of the state court defendants or what exactly is the judgment that it's being collaterally appealed or or is only appeal to whatever the lingo is well though the language in the complaint is with regard to an appeal or arithmetician from judge models decision that he was not the cues from the case and the judge and the justices opinion that upheld court what's the state court judgment that you're contending that the plaintiff is trying to in effect appeal in federal court with regard to the sale of that big park right home beach park so here's my question for you i mean richard feldman gets overused argument this is a this is a contention you could have made did or did make or could have made in state court and there's a final judgment against you all of these arguments here about judge my ass went off the rails and you know was doing this to try to create favor or whatever those are all arguments that the plaintiff could make on appeal in state court and if the plane or anything before the trial court for that matter and on appeal so those are all things that potentially could be covered by the doctrine of claim preclusion so why wouldn't you argue claim preclusion i mean particularly with you when you get  with regard to the allegations in the complaint the judges are immune there's nothing that takes but that leads to another problem which is i think my answer is correct far as her for you i at right why should we be applying circumstances because with regard to the issues that are alleged in this case which are  things that have been finally determined such as the disqualification issue it has wide trench conelly was asking when he was asking you what what is it exactly that is the judgment that you're claiming is being undermined here as i understand it there were there's a series of cases the main issue was with regard to the cell of the  that as i understand it was determined and was sold and their interests were sent there are were other cases and to be honest because i some of the facts of all of the cases aren't in the would thank you very much if i could address the question that the court was concerned about on the issue of i guess finality we could call it what's interesting in the case law particularly  exxon mobil does not make a determination that there has to be a final judgment but it basically says is that the doctrine of rooker feldman can apply if the state court proceedings have and  interesting we do know end and i will be the first to admit that it's a concept that is in somewhat of a flux as far as what that means but in this particular case we've got a scenario where we do have an ending and just let me give you one example what council referred to in this case as tool we'll call it the x party contact argument where he said that he was going in for a t r o and the judge allegedly was was on vacation and somehow called in the argument that they made in that case was there was some kind of improper x party contacts by someone or one of the parties and  it got rid of and that's really important here because if you look at the california code of civil procedure one seventy point three d that's a statutory writ so that means the only avenue for review is a rich proceeding whether it's granted or denied that order going up was had to be reviewed by a writ so what that means is it's not appealable immediately it's not appealable after a final judgment that ruling after it goes up to the fourth appellate district division three is ended and it's ended because there's no further review available but that's an example of what i  how could they be well i think so your honor not against the the judges or the verdict and it doesn't attack anything that was actually in the verdict because these things weren't litigators i understand they were litigated your honor in the  it was the judgement was decided and in the entire case was dismissed why would that be that's from asking why how can that be and why is that proper well i think worker feldman applies in this case for the very clear reason that this is but the appeal your honor is of of the decision that was made and ended in the reality of what happened here but if asked shouldn't i understand what you said as to the recusal and i that makes sense but i'm asking about the substantive claims for do share egypt breach of a jury duty against the private parties where the judges are not defendants why is that not a situation in which the case is just going on in state court well i think your honor that when you're looking at that i think the ultimately all those actions are intertwined now that is the case i say just a complete fudge i mean that that that's the answer that's the it's always saying the conclusion why are they why are they in inextricably intertwined whatever that means we have the allegations your honor are sufficiently similar that it would cover the entire claim in my opinion anyway the power with a similar i mean that the the other ones how of claims have to do with the allegation that there was some kind of fraud going on or collusion and these just have to do essentially with the fact that there is it's just a state to state cause of action against your client saying you did this he's arguing that the fraud in collusion is a result of the decisions made by the court which are the same decisions that were made in the think what your time is up thank you very much thank you thank you for  are there cases out there similar to this and in fact there is cited in our papers great western mining and mineral versus fox rothschild third circuit two thousand and ten sixty six fifteen of third one fifty three it's on annie how close that case is and it's in our papers it's it was it involved a situation where the plaintiff alleged there was can't tainting of due process because of the influence the external influence of the largest d r service provider in that tri state area and it is as i said uncanny how close it is to our case i would the court found that rigor feldman did not apply because it was an independent claim ultimately the case was dismissed on appeal because after three tries on the third attempt to amend the plaintiff was unable to state a claim or into the the opinion now our point is that we haven't had a chance to amend and if we're given a chance to amend we've discovered other facts and law since we filed this complaint which we would incorporate that we would do things a little bit different so we believe that that it's that it's appropriate that we have the right to a