i know you're pro se and sally that we've read everything you submitted so you don't have to repeat that and you only have five minutes ok thank you on may it please the court good morning your honor and sixty four the or lawful abuse of discretion by district court under rule for one district court has merely replace one unconstitutional abuse of discretion under rule for a one for another one under rule for three the reasons why district court rule for all three ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion is that it is a wrong asli based upon fausta and misleading facts namely the nature of the city court order excluded by district court in other words district court claims that the order of city court was the product of a suppression hearing this is certain is false because district court because the city court ordered that appellate has offered to prove that the defendants were acting without probable cause was not a suppression order as relied upon by district court in this new ruling under a roof or three but was the result of a trial court order of dismissal of the at the conclusion of a criminal trial and therefore cannot be lawfully considered as unfairly prejudiced under three simply because it is an adverse ruling to the defend another false and misleading fact relied upon by district court was that the city court judge did not make a credibility ruling against the defendants at the criminal proceeding this assertion has been proven by the record to be force furthermore  course assertion that the only order offered as proof of the defendant's lack of proper cause to arrest is not supported by the record in another false fact asserted by district court is that wont plaintiff for the st time in connection with this action brought this final dismissal of the criminal the nd circuit remained the matter on appeal however discord in its mandate determined that the decision to establish that hangs a rest l dan even though it is all material evidence to support you dish but but even though it's prejudicial it's not unfair because the issue of probable cause was determined by the lower court and that's the issue dead district that issue was not in dispute it's never been in this way to help me understand the procedural background apps of some of the st challenge was what a city court judge city of buffalo there was a city court judge judge fear relatively handled the underlying criminal  was arrested and he said there was no probable cause and dismissed that arrest is more complicated that your honor but initially he found that there was probable cause to arrest that's the st decision that he made subsequent to that and the suppression hearing he found that there was no probable cause based on the application of the criminal procedure law that that decision that's a this is an on the suppression hearing was then brought up on appeal to a judge she looked at tullio a county court judge who issued a decision finding that no there was probable cause to arrest under a separate section of the criminal procedure law one hundred and forty dollars subsection one a and the basis for that was that the officers observed the actual criminal act which would have been the disorderly conduct in the st instance they observed the disorderly conduct and there was people in the vicinity and that's specifically what judge the tulio found that there was people in the vicinity not at the bus stop so that decision comes down  then goes back to judge fear of rela judge pirro and this this is the part where i get to because this this specific proceeding was and is not really in the record except for the judge's determination which is again is on to fifty of the supplemental appendix where he just decides and i'll quote officer reza back testified that that there was that he made an arrest for that they arrested her for disorderly conduct and he also testified that there was no one at the bus stop when he made this arrest so i'm going to determine that there was no probable cause and this case is in dismissed now that is in direct contravention the judge to tullio earlier appeal but because we were not a party to that proceeding because that was handled by the district attorney's office not the corporation counsel's office the defendant's mourner party we were unable to appeal that and that's the reason that's the reason why in part i'm long with all the other things that dismissed and then discovery starts and then plaintiff makes a motion for summary judgment one of three that she has made throughout this proceeding and then that was this denied it goes there's some discovery we end up trying the case in june of two thousand and sixteen all of these things are talked about the only thing that is redacted is that language that judge irrelevant found based on that there was no one standing at the bus stop and the jury finds in favor of the defendant and  never and they find for the police officers they hear that there was no one at the bus stop that there's testimony about that they hear that there's people in the vicinity there's testimony about that the jury hears all of these things from the actual witnesses from the people who were there not not in a judge's decision anyone who complains that they heard the officers were present when it happened so the officers testified to that fact and that's the basis for a judge to tullio is finding parties were not aligned so the district attorney's office does not have the same interests as the officers who actually have to be there the district attorney's office often cares about their own time and they don't want to waste it for whatever reason that they decide whereas our officers have to defend the case and would have taken the appeal had they been afforded that opportunity and we believe would have been successful based on judge the two leos earlier determination so judge and i apologize for going over i'll stop at any time try to be quick but judge know finds ok the court found that there is some relevancy let's go through the balancing act let's go through four or three as prescribed in this court summary order and he finds that because because of this sort of tortured history  session because it's unclear because under people versus baker and people versus walker it doesn't even matter it is not particularly important for the purposes of a disorderly conduct charge that there wasn't anyone there the officers are there what the law says is there just has to be if the officers observe it they can make that arrest he concluded it was more prejudicial than probative and and they're limiting it it doesn't say anything reasoning for that is it as we sort of seen in the brief and i mean there is still going to be this argument from the plane at the end it's in her brief that this finally determined the probable cause hearing which could cause a jury to be confused on this issue the jury is better off hearing from the people who were there from the witnesses here's what happened here are the facts because a judge is in a particular spot a particular position they what the court with the cases say is that the could be undue weight given to that determination by the jury which would not be it which would be substantially prejudicial so that the prejudices is not only roll of the prejudices is the well ask you what is the prejudice what's the what's the danger of prejudice prejudice is we were afforded an opportunity to appeal and we think the decision was wrong so that's what doesn't make the piece of evidence prejudicial it does when it's decided by a city court judge  not going to be there and the i would have a prejudice arises from the evidence itself not from the procedures and your honor i would submit that the evidence is just an opinion it is not someone who is there it's not it's not someone is being offer d as an expert it is not someone who saw any of these things is not someone who's going to testify at the at the trial so all of these things amount to prejudice because the jury is going to say well if some other judge decided this and the plaintiff is arguing that this is important and the plaintiff is arguing that he and i'll quote unquote from their brief finally decided the issue that could be prejudicial and it would be prejudicial and it would be you're really saying there they might give it too much weight i think the case law says that because a judge has decided it that there is substantial chance and substantial there's a likelihood that there's going to be substantial presidents from that rising from the jury giving it too much weight that's correct that's the only thing that might make it  produce now i think i think all the other things i talked about earlier is that i'm not going to be able to cross examine this judge i'm not going to be able to offer a judge the tools decision which is wrong i mean i suppose we could have a completely separate rehearing of these earlier criminal proceedings but what am i supposed to do i was in a party to that proceeding that's prejudice i would have appealed that i wasn't allowed to the defendants were allowed or you were your corporation counsel you were dear were corporate i'm corporation counsel i represent the defendants only why did disagree with their decision not to appeal it they had earlier they had appealed it earlier and judges the tulio decision to my mind i believe state that there was probable cause to arrest that was never reversed that was never overturned it was sent back to judge fear rela judge the rela made a decision which i think is in contravention to that appellate court decision and it was left there and we find out about it you know sometime after admitting it to the bar and become an attorney years later ok thank you thank you i had committed a crime in the presence of the officer again just for your role it determined that i did not commit a crime in the presence of the officers now with respect to move forward three other the suppressant decision i like to