jurisdiction over this case at all you have jurisdiction your honor because there is an abstract issue of law involved in this case namely the mis application of the rule of heil versus santoro and the  district court who heard the defendant's motion for summary judgment by the way without oral argument but did not apply the rule of that case correctly to the record and the record of this case are on or under that role as the court is aware a party opposing summary judgment does not create a triable issue by denying her previously sworn statements and as a receiving excuse me i know it wasn't a different proceeding it wasn't in this case it wasn't a technically a yes it was a different proceeding it was in a proceeding before the connecticut commission on human rights and opportunities this was a voluntary complaint that listening now the plaintiff file action i believe so your honor yes but there is no authority cited by the district court that it does not apply when the sworn statement is made in a prior proceeding and subsequently it's not cited in my brief but i believe the second circuit also it's i'm not sure it's the same exact document doctrine as john joshua stoppel but it is a judicial a stop all that trans all right lorraine the court use the term dispute a tribal issue a fact is not created by disputing let me give you a quote from perma research the deposition of a witness will usually be more reliable than his affidavit since the deponent was either cross examined by opposing counsel or at least available to opposing counsel for cross examination yes it was that that's not a different circumstance off the quite normal if you will circumstances that district courts probably run into every day and that is where there has been a deposition in the case th after that's correct affidavit right is a different view has more reliable it's a it's a different circumstance but not more reliable your honor because there's no more unusual circumstance read from one of our cases will usually be more reliable than his  litigation the district court litigation actually will have more conviction more force if you will because precisely because they current for the litigation so hile versus santoro there is no authority that it does not apply to the to the procedural the circumstances of this case and the district court cited no authority and supposing that it did not apply so that presents an abstract issue of law for this court to the object of reasonableness of the defendant's actions or honor properly and that is another legal issue that's presented looking at the statement that was in the prior administrative filing  is it clear that that is has to be construed as a voluntary consent to the officers having entering the home she said she permitted them to enter she was in a state of shock i believe it's it's a clear message that i granted that then they asked if they could come in and i granted them permission to live in a state of shock at the appearances of these officers at her door so she stated that isn't there isn't there an issue there a question that could be raised as to whether any consent was really volunteered i do not believe so your honor she did state a reason for why she granted them voluntary to to satisfy the exceptions of the fourth amendment i think i think your honor that the fact is the effect on the hearers namely the defendants in this case for whatever she was going through in her mind point is that she granted them permission to come in that's what she said and that's of course is what they have said and the court was wrong to find that the plaintiff created a genuine dispute by her own later testimony and by the way  argued in the reply brief and objective officer a reasonable officer would believe under the circumstances presented in this case that there was implied consent we are of course in a circumstance is entirely divorced from actual important to consider that this entire encounter was health and safety related entirely divorced from any question of detection or investigation of a crime and the court's statement statement that there was clearly established under these particular factual circumstances it was me stake and that it these issues are not clearly sepsis in this particular factual circumstance and if the court will