mcneil you can take the podium yes ma'am thank you for the opportunity to be heard and may it please the court my name is out of mcneese i have requested and been denied  reasonable accommodation under the americans with disabilities act title to the nature of my request was already zero hearings these are what are you hearing these are important because they hold the procedures practices and protocols of the judicial system what's unique is that in november fourth two thousand and ten supreme justice to what cass classified these audio recordings as the public domain it's important to understand that in order from for and normal pro se to understand the system they should have a little opportunity to access the procedures of the system  i've had medical information that's been discerned or whatever and i'd like to point out that  these many trials where they try to disqualify me are against the the nature and intent of the law it's important for me to be able to understand the machinations of government and i believe people have the opportunity and the right to understand and obtain the informed consent or the consent or the knowledge to get to the informed consent of the is cochran one nine hundred sixty two it was decided that a pro se was so disadvantaged to be proceeding against a trained lawyer that there was no hope to win and i want to level that playing field by allowing people like myself to have access to these recordings which i've already bill are you arguing that the procedure of the connecticut as it has to go to a particular court about state law is not something we can do something about but my problem with that argument which is an interesting one is this did you go do you try that procedure so that we can know whether  fear no sir but this case was dismissed at the state level based on sovereign immunity and i invoked in the federal law of a d f a and i ask you to consider the micus brief by snout senator blumenthal who said they wouldn't abrogate reasonable requests these things are the public domain now and they should be allowed to all people to understand  witness to the procedures of the courts i've the basis of this appeal is the fact that the attorney general for the state of connecticut misled judge say by saying that what i've been afforded these accommodations routinely and in fact i only had one accommodation and that was the cd i submitted to you but to me to go to your point on the claims commissioner i found out about it after the fact and what the claims commissioner is doing is he's cherry picking plaintiffs to realize the ones that they can easily win whereas i say that every citizen of connecticut has a right to a path of supreme connecticut entity but she has separate counsel but i am arguing on behalf of the claims commissioner today as well so if there's any questions pertaining to the claims against the claims commissioner i can respond to those but i am arguing on behalf of all of the state respond to the motions to dismiss that were filed before judge this court has said in following the united states supreme court decisions in the u s we georgia and tennessee v lane that where a plaintive has failed to state a title to claim that the sovereign immunity inquiry is added and in this court said that in mary jo c and henrietta d and so the district court in following that reasoning dismissed the a b a claims against the state defendants because here the plaintive put forth no evidence of and a violation other than just threadbare conclusory statements that his rights were violated and in fact the only record of evidence that was before the district court was evidence that plaintive had been accommodated and had been provided with plaintiffs is arguing that the connecticut procedure for allowing for waiving sovereign immunity is so bad that's the bulk of the argument why these here and i'd like to hear an answer with respect to that question well his claim that that's his claim that's targeted towards the kid the connecticut claims commissioner process so it and you're saying you're representing them yes i am so i will insert that i think the title to eighty a claim is somewhat different because there there can be an abrogation and you would need to go to the claims commissioner but the separate process that the state of connecticut has for when people who normally where there has been no either waiver of sovereign immunity or valid abrogation of sovereign immunity sometimes the state of connecticut let you today was that he hasn't availed himself of the process that the district court properly found that he lacked standing and the district court's decision that he had he had conceded that he had not even filed a claim at the claims commissioner and that's at the supplemental appendix at fifty three you know until your say that it isn't newt's face so proper that we can take it up to we have cases where we say that article seventy eight proceeding in new york is so way inadequate to do something that people don't need to go there but can make a claim about getting back propert standing requirement of having shown we would certainly not say that filing a claim like in your article seventy eight hypothetical that finally the claims commission will be futile in some way we just don't have any evidence in the record here so our position is there is absolutely are our claims commissioner process goes above and beyond what we would need to do and in this court so as a matter of logic where we have sovereign immunity and we where it hasn't been waived or validly abrogated we give you this other process where sometimes we feel it's appropriate for reasons that are in our statutes where you may still be allowed to sue the state so we would respectfully request that the district court's decision be affirmed as to all of the state defendants thank you thank you here from the town of waterford it is where they are frivolous claim and why is it phyllis or just can was a relegation confusing allegations and compound that again by the lack of briefing and many course of peel including this one have held that you know without an and courts should not be manufacturing claims of error in drafting a complaint even for a pro se plaintiff and it's not fair to my client a ton of water for to try to discern what he is claiming in his case against us town does not move teen lee record every single meeting of every single board or commission but would do so if asked which he never asked and you were not asked i missed him at moose not for the particular meeting that he complain about in a different case in state court and again nothing's been fleshed out factually in this court of what his claim is in this court but he has other claims pending in all different states of dismissal appeal pending on some claims but my class position is not on the record but he never asked to have a meeting recorded and they don't recall routinely record them but if asked they would do so now  fiasco them and they refuse then perhaps you could make a claim that could probably go forward at some level but to date we don't have anything and we have nothing to defend ourselves against not properly constituted corps properly constituted court has a judge and two adversaries and it's through the clash of the adversaries that the truth arises the claims commissioner is in fact a lawyer for the state of connecticut and like i said cherry picks the plaintiffs are the easiest cases to win i in fact have asked for the recordings from the town of waterford not have you asked the claims commission and that may be something we're not allowed to do you know we're limited in what you know i understand that but on the face value a lawyer for the state of connecticut cannot decide a case and when he decides against you there's no right of appeal to come here there's a separate line of appeal to go to the connecticut state legislature which makes no sense either because they're mostly lawyers still so there's no particular judge in this process it's a connecticut lawyer and lawyers are meant to do for the best for their client which is the state of connecticut there's no impartiality of a judge there that's why i chose not to participate because it takes to actually years to get a decision from the claims commissioner and many times there arbitrary and  got these and as it is it's finding that i got these accommodations routinely and that's not the case i only had one and it was a dismissal and i think it's bad form to dismiss a federal law on sovereign immunity who is who is the king here i don't understand sovereign immunity is something from before the constitutional convention that they held not to keep the people ignorant in fact it's our right and i want to refer to our beloved constitution article four section two which says that all citizens are entitled to the rights and privileges of other states and with that when you look at other states they freely give the information of these town meetings and any complaints against the town