submit the case in the briefs and you are obviously here appearing on behalf of your client wayne county and and i guess what i would ask of the of the court obviously this case has been extensively briefed  it was a very highly contentious case as you well know having looked at the briefs if you have any specific questions before i get started i'd be happy entertain those or i'd just like to maybe just give a brief recitation of the facts and and the appellant song position well i guess my question would be more directed to the to the plaintiff helland but under a mono claim and that's all we have here against wayne county because the other defendants have been either dismissed or there's not appeals as to the other defendants so all we're left is with the governmental entity who does not have like yours liability so undermine nell the point of has to things that was pointed out by the by the district court in a lengthy discussion starting at page eighteen of the twenty four page opinion basically what the what the district court said was  documents or anything to point to any type of unconstitutional unconstitutional policy on the count of wayne county on the part of one county that was moving force behind any type of constitutional deprivation but even before that the court pointed out that the plaintiff had wholly failed to even allege or prove any type of of any type of injury is ok is there a law now claim pled in the complaint you're saying there's a lack of evidentiary support or is it just is it also lack of pleading there was a lack of everything from support but also by completing in the first amended complaint that there is no there is no  there is no allegation in the first minute complaint that there was any type of any type of unconstitutional policy and certainly after a year of discovery there was absolutely no evidence or proof is there of all malicious prosecution and  failure to protect is the jail that's correct that's correct that's correct and in the absence of any individual defendants wayne county defendants the city of detroit police officers already having been dismissed and settled out of the case the know more if you can hear what happened at the preliminary examination regarding military identification of johnson marv you the record deal that didn't come up can you help me understand how that happened or  absolutely and i have a copy of the preliminary examination and that was that was document fifty nine dash two is exhibit two of an exhibit by wayne county miller who was the fiance of the person who was shot and killed actually murdered testified and in court identified the plaintiff jordan as the shooter she also testified that she had a dental fide plaintiff as the shooter at the scene of the crime and so and and importantly milner was the only testifying witness who was subject to the cross examination not only available but actually cross examined by the criminal defense mr george criminal defense attorney so there was that in court identification of of jordan as the shooter there was the on scen identification as jordan as the shooter and both of those points were were noted in testified to in or open court by millner and it was the the basis of the problem probable cause individual johnson b of the photo lineup and if you agree with you the fifty nine dash to pay thirty nine the magistrate judge concluded based upon the evidence and he said the evidence was only evident correct that the defendant at that time was the shooter but johnson the identification of him the other photo lineup that happened between the two didn't come up it seems that that sort of been something the court should have been made aware of and that about which i would like to be better informed understood and judged to be quite honest with you i'm not familiar with that particular fact what i do know is that mr jordan was represented by counsel