to void that order it's very simple on april fourth i submitted a motion for recusal it was not opposed by the other council which means as of that date jurisdiction was lost abrams did not come to that conclusion when i first came here this court says subject matter jurisdiction was the most important thing there was no decision on that from the lower courts i'm not asking to overturn a decision there was no decision it was postponed several times and on april twel we right before the court judge dawson just says oh i'm not going to take that she does not have that authority the judge does not make it to jurisdiction in the city and so what i'm asking for is that the rule sixty b for judge abrams order even though it was appealed should be thrown  because we've never answered the question of jurisdiction not settled law says brian versus novak in new york that says recusal is automatic so that's another question before the court there was never an answer for the recusal request the pace because of one because i had the first lawsuit which is here the second is for her by the law is and i'll cover that in my second lawsuit in my second part of this argument so that was a reason for it but nevertheless i have a right to question jurisdiction in any stage of any  proceeding so clearly i think the judge arabs should have at least answered that question on the record on the record it was never answered then apply immunity according to harlow versus fitzgerald if you want to do that but you can't leverage immunity and then say oh she's covered by the unity so moving on to my primer on the line case your honor that my case started with a domestic violence violence report which means basically says is no arrest because i feel that it's in the record i was arrested and removed from my property as we all know article one section ten clause one contract the state cannot interfere on my mortgage cannot remove me from my property my is investigator and according to eastern district judge chief judge it says an investigator in order to proof fraud in a contract it's very simple one he must be an investigative mode which is a support officer which is not an which is not a judge to he must find fraudulently find facts which is he removed my more you to order to calculate child support as we know this disc circuit courts as child support is a contract under us versus age so it's not law and then he passed it on to judge dawson who then says oh of course she's right that's one of the violations roddy asked for the recusal motion that's one of them and third a jury would have likely say yes they ordered this south support order was ok if we hide the mortgage we know we know a mortgage is public document i can find your mortgage i can find your mortgage i could find your mortgage so so that's of itself the third the police officer had no warrant the order protection was void from the beginning because you can't remove me from my property and then arrest me and then throw the case out saying oh and then clark the state the state gave a contract to a convicted felon to occupy my apartment to rack up forty thousand dollars worth of expenses and judge dawson wouldn't deal with it the state is part of the ring leader you can't do that to me and get away with it and then finally with my domestic violence report any white female could go into any court and get a judge to say yes you have a case for that oh here rast you we should go to trial in my case i'm asking for a trial before the district court on that issue as well the state is also part of that the state and judge dawson are together on this issue this is a good place you still have two minutes for a battle we'll hear first from the state and then from the city thank you mark for the state of new york and the state judges named as defendants the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's claims against the state defendants are barred by the eleventh amendment judicial immunity and the record feldman doctrine  the eleventh amendment bars claims against the state and its judicial officers acting in their physical in their official capacities his claims here only for monetary damages and the plaintiff identifies no waivers or obligation of sovereign immunity here so the district court properly dismissed those claims turning to the claims against the judicial defendants in their individual capacities judicial immunity bars the claims because the only allegations in the complaint concern plaintiff's interactions with the judges in the court house in their capacity as judges and the judges only committed acts within their jurisdiction as we explain in our brief i will briefly speak about the rule sixty b motion which i believe the judicial notice motions were resolved but the rule sixty b motion is still open  a separate lawsuit that this court affirmed in october in which we submitted a twenty a j letter concerning that decision so that motion should simply be denied because it's in the wrong place and also it does not satisfy the requirements for rule sixty b relief unless the court has any further questions all rest on our papers and ask that you affirm the district court i don't have any you testimony and they issue reports and recommendations to the family court or the trial court with respect to amounts of child support or by the same immunity that is correct we argue that this the supreme court has extended immunity to actors acting in judicial capacities and that's extended even further than magistrates but also to law appellant was arrested in may of two thousand and nine he was detained in may of two thousand and nine the case was dismissed him in march two thousand and ten he had three years from those dates to bring an action he did not bring suit until august two thousand and sixteen long at the time to file had expired in any event his monarch claims were meritless as a discord held he felt identify a single municipal policy custom or practice that was responsible for his alleged constitutional rights violations what he relied upon was a decades old lawsuit against new york and a comment in the mall in commission's report but neither of those things established any link toward a current policy that was responsible for his alleged injuries and no inference could be made from his allegations that he had suffered a const made none of these arguments so a let me continue you don't have an attorney now right ok so you understand both counsel just made legal arguments yes ok not facts right legal arguments all right you said two minutes to try and respond the first legal argument is that the phillies officer in the city case did not have a warrant under peyton versus new york that's a legal army that says he's not covered by immunity the second legal argument further investigation should have been done to know that this was my property and you cannot write an order protection to remove me from that as you know if i did raise my finger at a police officer that's protected by the first amendment so if i tell the police all that this is my property that's protected by first amendment under contract law the argument is the charges were dismissed in two thousand and ten yes under the law you have three years to sue you didn't sue until two thousand and sixteen and therefore the claims are are by the statute of limitations how do you respond to that i respond to that your honor under it's in my paperwork where i said it's when i realized that my rights were violated is when that clock starts not according to when the incident happened being that there was no foundation for the incident therefore there is no time board for violation of a constitutional right none whatsoever that's not correct ok or a right starts running when are damaged when you are harmed your honor i was harmed because as a result of the arrest i lost my apartment it was foreclosed on because they were moving i couldn't pay the second legal argument is the fraudulent concealment by right netscape regarding the child support as you know can i finish my sentence your honor your support of judicial officer you must be in that mode according to the judge even the eastern district told me that they have the same immunity as judicial officers they do not in the process your honor because they are investigated more their job is to find or a fact of child support which is they collect the evidence then make a determination sends it to judge dawson for decision and if it's an adverse effect that is called invest even a prosecutor doing that function is not covered by immunity at all the eastern  that very clear in morse versus fast first to which this court says extended that investigative as well as justice leave or not leave or hall hall said the same thing if you're an investigative mode which most support officers are you're not covered by merely however you are covered under color of law because your mind managing and monitoring federal programs that's also my papers as well so yes they are covered under current law but they're not covered by immunity because their investigative mode that is why they have to go to judge dawson for final determination so it's like giving false evidence to the jury and says opie is a conviction as you know that's not covered by the law that's a legal argument that i can bring forward that's why i wanted to go to trial all i'm asking for is that this court just allow me to take this to the end of trial so that all these legal argument that i have could be put forward properly as opposed to dismissing the claim there are facts i agree none of them can be disputed but the point is i've made very clear in the law that i was harmed i lost my apartment i lost have been the apartment which by the way break says i can come in and talk about due process violation and how i was damaged so i think you've made your argument and we have your papers so we will consider them i will reserve decision i will issue an order in d