and only one but a very fundamentally important issue in question for the most part the district court correctly applied the rule that the plaintiff is entitle as the nonmoving party to all favorable inferences all resolutions of a fact on disputed questions must be resolved in his favor and therefore the court found that you could a reasonable jury certainly could find a conspiracy here to convict mr franklin on perjured testimony  as to whether his daughter had recovered her memory under hypnosis the daughter and her sister were aware that if it was hypnotically induced it would not be admissible  defendant i told her family that it was hypnotically induced and then when she found out about the ruling surely told them to lie about it to suzanne account let me just if i may interrupt for a moment tell you work is my concern about your part of supports the conclusion that two state actors because sandro in morse met with the defendant in this case was the complaining witness and she told them that she had been hypnotized for weight loss record supports the conclusion when that each of them went into a trial and perjured themselves each of them said no she never said that the district court found that the cassandra's notes contain the notation that she had been hypnotized for weight loss and that's material now because the question would be so the jury can find ok these three people all perjured themselves as to whether she had admitted being hypnotized what inference could a jury draw from that the reason they perjured themselves and it's the only reason why it has if if that if they had said well she was once a practice she could lose weight ok so hypnotized with the government knew by the time of trial is that other evidence showed that she had told her family yes i have been hypnotized and this was hypnotically induced so the the it was important for the state at trial to maintain no she's never been hypnotized there's never been any notice at all why would three to state actors commit the crime of perjury and deny that she had admitted being hypnotized other than the fact that once she admitted to being hypnotized that surely door is opened you take the fact that she has admitted to the police she's been hypnotized with the fact that she told her family yes i've been hypnotized and it was that hypnosis that led to my memory that the case is over the prosecution is dead janice franklin has said they deliberately lied about the hypnotically induced memory because they knew the case would  come to a halt if they admitted that so you have you have the record supports the conclusion that two police officers will commit perjury in their case on the exact  conspiracy by the sisters over here to lie about the hypnotically induced memory you've got a conspiracy by the police over here and one of the actors to lie about whether she ever admitted hypnosis but those are two separate conspiracies and who could possibly infer that the joint commission of perjury on the issue of whether she admitted hypnosis has anything to do with this conspiracy over here to deny hypnotically induced memory let me let me change the subject for a second i don't i don't understand why she is not entitled to absolute witness immunity because the in this court in hot harris vs roderick said that the the a conspiracy to convict on the basis of false testimony if you were the complaining witness would make sure the complaining witness as opposed to just a percipient witness she was not the victim or relative of the victim she just called the police and says i have information about a crime what makes sure the complaining witness well what what i think the district court correctly found is that she a jury could find she doesn't simply do that she organizes a conspiracy with her sister to orchestrate perjury yes she does make the complaint but your honor there roderick says if you're a complaining witness you don't have your complaining witness you don't get absolute witness immunity i don't understand then why anybody who calls the police and says i've just witnessed a crime would then be denied immunity i mean under your construct anybody who calls the police and says i witnessed a crime go out investigate would be the complaining witness well one legal anyone would say as a matter of law that anyone who files a complaint is necessarily a complaining witness which if you file a complaint well she she she made the original to call the police and said i have information about a crime write it against somebody else right and but what i think the director the district court correctly found is that when someone orchestrates and a jury certainly could find orchestrated a broad conspiracy to bring false prosecution that that person can qualify as a complaining witness what the court says i i cannot find as a matter of law that someone even a private citizen who is suborning perjury obstructing justice and deliberately bringing up false prosecution knowing that if they told the truth the prosecution could not be initiated because it surely will cannot as a matter of law be found not to be accompanied with there's certainly try and convict george franklin on the basis of perjured testimony there is no triable issue of fact as to an essential element of any such alleged conspiracy in order for there to be a conspiracy there must be a joint agreement a joint meeting of of the minds that can be at very least inferred from the evidence presented here there is no trival issue as to whether the detectives and the prosecutor ever joined such a plan the key issue as your honour's have pointed out is whether there is a tribal issue as to did the detectives and the prosecutors ever just believe eileen franklin story that she first recalled the details of this murder without the assistance of hypnosis and the record is clear that the and and unequivocal that those detectives and the prosecutor never once doubted their witness eileen franklin and with out that subjective intent there can be no conspiracy unless they disbelieve eileen franklin they could not be found by a jury to have joined a conspiracy with her now there are questions of fact as to whether eileen franklin which hypnotized she told her brother and her mother that she was hypnotized and recovered these memories under hypnosis and then later at trial remembered the details of this murder this murder under the influence of the fifth gnosis again she told her brother and mother that she had first recalled the memories under hypnosis and later at trial she didn't these issues were all known at the time of trial these were not hidden from the defense just they formed the very basis for the defense there's no question of fact however as to whether the state officials ever just believe eileen frankly now appellant argues and i was listening carefully when your honor asked what evidence do you have that support inference that the detectives or the prosecutor were involved in a conspiracy what evidence is there of state action and the appellant argues and begins his argument with citing the court's attention to a note of a conversation the detectives had when they went down to los angeles to interview the witness about the details of the of the crime and the note says witness to luke witness hypnotized to lose weight and from that appellant argues that the court or a reasonable juror could come to the conclusion that the detectives were lying and they in the reasoning behind that is that they said well the detectives say that what they what the real conversation was was that the eileen franklin said that she merely considered hypnosis that she will lose weight that she never told them that she had in fact been hypnotized to lose weight and therefore there's a difference in the story and the appellant argues that they're entitled to an inference from that evidence that the police officers lied now they that in and of itself the the crux of the of the matter that doesn't get the appellant where appellant needs to go appellant needs to establish that the detectives knew that eileen franklin was  recovered was was first alerted to these memories of the hit of the murder while under hypnosis that's what the dea that's what needs to be  and the quality of the evidence describing the role of eileen franklin lipsky or in this case that she was not a complaining witness under briscoe a witness is entitled to receive witness further state that this immunity not only covers the actual testimony but understanding that the testimony does not take place in a vacuum that testimony involves the preparation for the actual testimony as well but appellant argues is that hairiest and mally haven't make an exception for a complaining witness someone of the who swears out affidavit that causes the power of the state to become and do become involved without any discretion on the power on the state as to whether or not to exercise that power and once that happens then under mallee and harris there is an exception to witness from unity in this case eileen franklin did not even make the initial  report to the to the cemetery county police department her husband did it was not until three days later that she provided the initial information that was then investigated by the detectives and it was not until a week later that the detectives interviewed her and she provided the account of of the actual murder the investigation the prosecution the decisions whether to pursue person to the prosecution where one hundred percent and this is without a tribal issue of fact clear in the record where one hundred one hundred percent undertaken by the prosecutors and the detectives doing the doing the investigation eileen franklin never swore out of an affidavit she never  never did anything other then respond to my request for information after husband had reported my wife knows something about a murder and we want to let you know what it is and the record is clear that eileen franklin was was reluctant and hesitant and had great trepidation about coming forward and as opposed to being someone who we could be characterized as a complaining witness someone who could be characterized as being aggressively involved in pursuing and having the power to control the litigation involvement being found in the alleged conspiracy if there was a conspiracy the conspiracy was with eileen and her sister and her brother but there is no showing at all in the record and no imprints no reasonable rational imprints that can be drawn from the record that the detectives and the prosecutors in fact knew that she was i use the definition of a complaining witness from anthony says baker as one who actively instigated or encouraged the prosecution of the plaintiffs then relied on robert harris as the complaining witness is someone who set in motion a series of events that they anticipated would lead to the plaintiff's indictment in this case there is a platter of evidence that eileen franklin orchestrated with her sister with her therapist with family false allegations this prosecution never would have begun without her and the there's plenty of evidence to support that her husband was very much an active participant in this case to the are going to go to the bank and while i'm waiting in line i watch a bank robbery and then i call the police and tell them what i saw in my mind the complaining witness if i'm the one who calls the police and tells them while i'm waiting in the bank i saw the teller get robbed well i  it could be a question of fact and i think a question of what's the fact i mean those are the facts i'm admittedly in the hypothetical your honor but that's enormously different than the putting the record before a jury and they could be instructed on the complaining witness immunity and say you have to find that this is a complaining witness but when you have a great deal of evidence that the prosecution resulted from a very extensive and well  plan to commit perjury then i think a jury could find as a matter of fact that that immunity doesn't depend on the content of the testimony that's the whole point of immunity it depends on the function that the person is performing happened to be there you see the complaining witness or nothing well i would i would certainly not venture to say that's necessarily a complaining witness but in roderick versus harris these were police officers or a federal officers did not control the prosecution they were simply people who the ninth circuit found offered perjury it could have a jury could find offered preacher is account to get this prosecution against mr weaver going there's no meaningful distinction between the role that mr mr franklyn lips were played in this case and the officers in that case they were no more in control of the litigation than she was this is a situation i think in roderick and here the question is that there is evidence to support a well orchestrated plan we're not talking about the testimony at trial but a well orchestrated plan based on perjury to start the prosecution and the final thing that i would say on the substance of issue is that it has to be the defendant's position they have to concede that a jury could find that franklin let's morrison because sandro all went into trial and perjured themselves on the same issue whether she had admitted being hypnotized and but the jury would then as a matter of law the precluded from saying that that joint perjury had anything to do with a generalized plan to convict him on the