good morning your honour's may it please the court my name is josephine smalls miller i am the appellant in this case representing myself and i have asked to reserve two minutes for r in addition to the matters that have been set forth in my brief i would like to ask that this court take judicial notice of the filing of the case called judicial notice there was not a motion for judicial notice but there was a motion to supplement the record and i do believe that it is important for this panel to consider the allegations in that complaint because if the events that have occurred even in the last two months is not considered by this court then i believe that what you will be looking at is a very sanitized record you're asking us to take judicial notice of allegations that i take it the case you're talking about is that's the point of view it is me so you're asking us to take judicial notice of allegations that you've made in a different brand new litigation to evaluate the issues relevant to this case which the district court considered based on the allegations that were made in this case ok however my understanding of the denial of that motion to supplement the record was a court said that they granted the motion but only if those matters were before the district court and as i was there not the question that that's all about rule ten this is that they said appellate practice we are here to review the decision that was made by the district court with respect to younger abstention in this case based on the allegations that were made in this case i think it is important for this court to take into account however the fact that at every stage of this litigation the district court refused to discovery in the case even limited jurisdictional discovery and then concluded that there were not sufficient facts upon which to decide the younger doctrine and as this court well knows while the younger doctrine is well established the factual basis for deciding whether younger abstention applies is something that this court would look at the no foul when this court is not privy to all that has continued to happen as i said i believe that you're looking at a sanitized view of an ongoing process and i would like to point the court's attention to the shawl versus garrison case where why wouldn't it be would it be impermissible in any way you you or your case this case miller against sutton is remains pending before the district court right yes and it's just that the district court based on the record before it decided that younger abstention was appropriate so is there anything that prevents you from going back to the district court to judge and making a new application to amend this point we're just to have him consider various new facts that are relevant to the younger doctrine why is it instead appropriate to come to this court and say that rather than reviewing what judge she actually did vacuum what i am saying to this court is that there has been a continuum of conduct that is relevant to the issue of whether or not there has been bad faith exhibited by that the defendants in this case with regard to the attorney disappears you're asking us not to review judge shay's decision on the record that was before him you are asking us to create a new record back to the district court so that the judge could look at that there was no agreement and under the rule forty two point one what what was decided on the stand the why why not withdraw this appeal with prejudice that wouldn't mean you could never address younger again you go back to the district court and think a new record and then come back when you've got a new record this appeal is based on the record before this because that's how it works that's what rule ten of a procedure says we sit to review the citizens that have been made by the district court based on the record in the district court right well but the problem is that on the first and we don't find but the problem is that the district court did not allow a development of the record and try you can appeal that by the district court but you are so used to other things the fact that he didn't determination or seeing it for the first time we can really do that if we look at what has occurred to this point it is my position that there has been sufficient evidence even though the record is limited sufficient evidence to show bad faith by the defendant in the manner in which they have printed pursued now on a discipline action  was it bad faith for these disciplinary authorities to act upon referrals that came to them from courts i mean remember we're not asking whether at this stage of the case whether they actually did anything wrong full we're asking whether we should make an exception to the usual rule that the way to handle any abuse is to defend the cases that are brought in the state system and the exception is based on the extraordinary case where these actions are transparently almost take in derogation of any kind of duty and what i see are disciplinary authorities the got referrals from presumptively reasonable sources saying that there should be investigations and there should be charges brought and they brought them now maybe in the end there are those charges will not be sustained or should not be sustained but why is there some obvious bad faith in a disciplinary authority running with a referral that was made to it by for example a connecticut appellate court i think if your honour's would look at the underlying record let's take the referral from the connecticut appellate court in their brief the defendant speak about quote problematic behavior on my part that lead the appellate court to decide that there should be a fur a referral for further discipline i'd like to point out to the court just two brief examples of the basis for that referral one was an instance where the court determined that because atrial scripts in the case had not been filed that the matter should be dismissed few because let's assume that the referral orders were erroneous that the courts that made the referral orders they were bishan to be done what they did to the findings were not justified let's assume that what's wrong  with the committee taking the referral and investigate but they have to come to a conclusion right here on our investigation can be used as a weapon and i believe that there are sufficient facts to show that that is indeed what has happened in this instance i would point the court to the end versus button case in that case there was a  statute that appeared to deal with attorney discipline but the underlying reason for that statute in the case was so that attorneys who were involved in civil rights litigation would feel the sword of damocles over their necks so what i have argued in the brief and before this court is that is apprehensive but what you're really saying to us is the committees should not have pursued it and we give them well i do think that the court can evaluate for example once the referral was made by the connecticut appellate court a wall to wall investigation was then undertaken and what the disciplinary authorities pounced upon were those of my cases that dealt with the issue of civil rights i think that this court cannot divorce the outcome of the investigation the outcome of the investigation was with regard  to certain of the matters that the disciplinary authorities proceeded to a probable cause hearing and then only at the conclusion of that probable cause hearing did the chief this of mary counsel decide that that particular claim that was for step proceeded to the probable cause hearing was before eight member reviewing panel which decided what which decided that there was a violation not with regard to those civil rights matters that disciplinary counsel said that she should have certainly not a proc timing trouble understanding why we should say and not because we're not reviewing this even at the end of the case we're asking whether this exception to ordinary younger extension extension should be made and you're saying we should infer bad faith from the fact that the disciplinary authorities conducted an investigation proceeded to bring certain charges actually withdrew some of the charges because they thought that the they did have an established probable cause and then succeeded in having an independent body find some basis for discipline why is that look like bad fa acknowledged you're telling me that they said well we don't think we've really got it on those charges and those charges did not result in discipline however if the court other charges that they brought did i mean that seems to me like the ordinary operation of a disciplinary or prosecutorial system of any kind that charges are brought some of them don't pan out others of them do the process works it reaches a conclusion now you know maybe there's to be something to look at when this is all over but you're asking the district court to intervene ex ante in to these disciplinary proceedings on the ground that there's versus garrison which stands for the proposition that an individual should not have to submit to repeated prosecutions that they shouldn't have to endure specious prosecutions until the end point especially when it's known in advance that the basis for the prosecution  was was one that should not have ever been brought in the instance that we've just referred to in the district attorney in new orleans who brecht magically pursuing some theory about the kennedy assassination or act correct  there are other cases that kind of stand for that same proposition what the what the disciplinary authorities and the district court have essentially concluded is just submit every type of every typo probable cause hearing that may be brought against you and in the end you'll be vindicated another example that i'd like to point out to the court for example is a referral that was made by a superior court judge where i was actually mistaken the wrong attorney and the wrong documents or submitted in support of a claim that i had acted improperly even though those documents were presented at the local grievance panel level it was completely ignored it proceeded to a full probable cause hearing before those charges were found to be false because i represent individuals in civil rights matters and i believe that the court would probably agree with me that the current zite guys that we have is much like what was singling you out when they respond to these charges because normally when courts refer things to this finery authorities with other attorneys they just want my thumb off well i've given an example in my brief of one individual just in peter to come on i know about that case and i was on the southern district grievance panel when this came up she got ultimately suspended from practice for seven years this is not a case where somebody being treated favorably actually i think that that's not correct she never served a day of suspension because at the end of the appeals process the discipline was applied retroactively the disciplinary authorities in connecticut did not even move for reciprocal discipline lay was because all of that this thing was under appeal this thing was ferociously fought through christine peters went through years of process that dwarf the kind of things you're talking about before the southern district before this corner one of the litigation went on for years just back to and you say she wasn't disparate she was disparate in the eastern district i signed the order and she was as it had to be a two year period before at least before she ultimately got reinstated but what i'm saying to the court is with regard to the courts and the disciplinary authorities in the state of connecticut they treated her with kid gloves she has never served a day of suspension and in fact wants the disciplinary authorities moved at the end of the seven years for reciprocal discipline decided she had suffered enough so that he would not even impose reciprocal discipline where she investigated during those seven years that she was continuing to practice no you know there there is nothing in the record to show that and i will submit to this court that i have been subjected to three probable cause hearing in the space of about fourteen months and at the last one which was held december first of twenty sixteen i have subpoenaed the parties at the disciplinary authorities who were involved in the peter's hamelin matter was refused the opportunity the subpoena was vacated so what i'm saying to this court is there is a very different manner in which the disciplinary authorities in connecticut handle discipline depending upon who the attorney is whether it occurs before them the conduct that miss peters was involved in occurred in courts in new york this is a reciprocal the discipline matter so entirely different it's nothing at all comparable well i do agree with you that there was nothing whatsoever comparable about the charges and the claims that were made with regard to her because it was a clear record of it however when you juxtapose the conduct that she engaged in that resulted in rather than the i'd rather be you than her say that well there's no there's no but there is a problem for an attorney who is repeatedly prosecuted and then as the end of the prosecution it's decided oh mistaken identity  the wrong attorney that is the very kind of action that the button court decided would have or could have a chilling effect i see your point i did just not sure you got  no track record to reach the level of overcoming younger well couple of cases when you say couple of cases you mean with regard to other individuals i mean  hear well and another example that i could point out to the court is that even with regard to the initial referral from judge amar of the district court was four simple pleading violation the probable cause hearing and even before the disciplinary authorities sought to get me to voluntarily agree to a suspension and use for comparative purposes a caucasian male attorney who had five percent mints three suspensions and the reprimand when i had nothing before me other than that one pleading violation found by judge mark what could be considered to be good faith in seeking a suspension for me under those circumstances we have to tell you many many  question that you have to decide is whether the district were properly dismissed on younger abstention grounds and this is a classic younger abstention case the defendants received two different in there were two disparate proceedings one of them is over the one from judge meyer the other one is still pending in that one the defendant's received two referrals from two different judicial tribunals they received a grievance complaint from an independent grievance panel they receive the probable cause finding from a different independent grievance panel and those submissions and plaintiff's allegations made clear that all they did was carry out their statutory duty to process and pursue the grievance in accordance with state law that's a classic ongoing status display proceedings that federal review is barred by you're now the plaintiff is raise a number of issues and i think i've addressed them all in my briefs i did just want to touch on one and that's the requirement under younger abstention that the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to raise her federal claims in the state proceeding she i think that i'm guessing that that's what the lawsuit that she filed yesterday relates to she absolutely does has and will have opportunities to raise or file federal claims in the state proceeding the first step in the process is once a grievance complaint is filed she has an opportunity to file a written response she can raise whatever defenses she wants make whatever argument she wants and put in whatever documents she wants all of that is part of the record if problem causes found that matter then go to the reviewing committee which the three member panel of the broader state migrants committee they have a full evidentiary hearing she can make arguments present evidence and witnesses if discipline is ordered or presentment is ordered from the reviewing committee she can seek review that from the full state wide grievance committee the practice book expressly authorizes the grievance committee to review for constitutional error in this case it was present and ordered in the pending discipline discipline proceeding and so  once that review for from the grievance committee happens the next step is to go to a present from the superior court judge that's a dyno proceeding there will be a formal complaint she can file a formal answer raise whatever defenses she wants put in whatever evidence she wants there will be  full evidence or hearing from a state court judge that judge has the authority and the ability to address the exact arguments that she's made to the district court in which he's intending is that is the subject geisha of her through the process of making her go through the  process as the result of a constitutionally chilling that i understand that you are so that's the bad faith issues there's there's a two issues there what i think in her filings later in the for this court to supplement the record having that goes to whether she had an opportunity to raise these issues which she does the bad faith argument i think i've addressed in my brief here on the bad faith exception only applies if the people who bring and initiate the proceeding are motivated by bad  properly concluded that there were no plausible allegations there were no at factual allegations of bad faith and that any notion of bad faith is utterly implausible in light of the fact that the diff defendants were simply responding to two referrals from judicial tribunals and grievous complaint filed by an independent panel and a probable cause finding by into another independent group has so the notion that there is bad faith here i think is utterly false there's no basis for the complaint  it doesn't apply and i think i've addressed all the issues of my briefs unless the court has any questions i rely on my brief and ask the court to from the judgment i had served for thirty five years in multiple courts federal courts state courts with a spotless record and i am not one to lightly talk about my accomplishments but thirty five years of no misconduct no allegations even of misconduct and then we had this referral from judge meyer which i believe was the catalyst for all that happened subsequent to that because i spoke out on a matter regarding racial discrimination within the legal system the defendants in this case obviously are not in agreement with that and they obviously are not admitting to such motivation but i would like this court as you ponder your decision in this to look at the citation in the brief to language by one of our state supreme court justices carmen espinosa it's rare that you get an insight into the thought process of judges particularly supreme court judges about how they ma decisions however judge espinosa in a case called the point versus commissioner of correction she said this that it was very telling regarding the kind of decision making that we can expect from the connecticut appellate courts i'm talking the supreme court would also be a these are the words that you use she says you will see sleight of hand you see shell games you see made up rules this is how she characterize the decision making process in our connecticut appellate court i think that this is important for this court to look at and to carefully examine the examples that i was able to provide to the court regarding the disparity in treatment all stemming from this catalyst of my complaint of racial discrimination thirty five years spotless history and now what we see happening by the disciplinary forty's and the courts in connecticut is what happens classically in anti discrimination litigation and i believe that i can talk about it because i've done that for thirty seven years now during which this conspiracy  until judge miers referral well and until i spoke out on this matter of racial discrimination in the way that african american attorneys are denied that's when all of this began and i think that the court should look at that in terms of analyzing was there bad fa was there a false narrative that is now being put forth this is what happens in anti discrimination litigation that i'm familiar with is employers respondants begin to create a paper trail for the action that they later want to take so many people in here there's different judges and different committees they're involved in th i think that the court may be underestimating the homo janay t of thoughts among those who are in the legal system in fact i wrote an attempt at the right an m across a brief on that in support of an african american male attorney on the idea that people want you to think in one way and when you do not sink in that way for example when you're doing civil rights litigation you're not making friends in the establishment and so it is not far fetched for this court to understand that the local grievance panels don't operate on their own the disciplinary authority the chief disciplinary authority doesn't operate on the bar council for the statewide grievance committee does not operate on his own i say with