what we have before you today is a simple case of a miscarriage of justice through the violation of twenty eight us c seventeen thirty eight the record in this case clearly shows that the plaintiff myself plaintiff appellate i was entitled to summary judgment because no triable issues of material facts were in dispute prior to district courts a violation of twenty eight us c section seventeen thirty eight and you can see the appendix a docket in tree ninety four attachment to which is the trial court order of dismissed so judge fair roller which states in part that the court has entertained this magistrate judge excluded the finding of the district of record of record that there was no probable cause they determine that you should win but that it was relevant to finding what the trial was all seem to say in your papers now did you make th issue of probable cost which in my favor we should have taken it into account when stu some degree right that was the doing because he ruled that it was at this time i'm going credit then i woulda had summary judgement granted to me because it was a no issues the only issue before the court after he rigged acted this court ordered he redacted the order and took out the determination of judge he took that determination out that was in my favor that's why i brought the lawsuit because the judge determined that i was arrested and started without probabl somebody juggling a long time ago to eight years to bring the case to trial and it was a never no issues and in the way the issue became an issue the because going to court we directed the probable cause determination then he gave that germination to the jury to decide the matter of law to the jury via his special into raga tori's and his question near and in essence i got convicted all over again because the questionnaire they found that i was committed acts of disorderly conduct and order mishandles represented by counsel at that time as my recollection that they did not raise your concern that that it be offered for evidence of something else other than the fact that and plaintiff reiterated it here today what she was really seeking was a summary judgment she was seeking summary judgment on that it was but didn't didn't the district court also say that it was irrelevant he might my problem is if that was of how relevant and how prejudicial is very hard to see that it was made because if somebody says something is a relevant it's very hard to go have a balance of a degree your prejudice because it's zero it may well be bit if you say this is irrelevant and it's hard for me to see is a logical matter but it is that that balancing was done when the magistrate judge said it isn't relevant at all you see my problem i think i i think what judge foster was doing was being overly cautious he took the next step and said i don't think this is relevant and i think he was right on that point under federal evans for a one what you basically have it's not residue to cut if it's not collateral estoppel you just have an opinion you have someone's opinion who was not a witness to the to the  the case is not the presiding judge it has no relevance because it is not it is not determined if it's just an opinion of a judge who is not in this proceeding and to take it a step further because it is no relevant and you do have an opinion of a judge it's certainly prejudicial that the jury hearing this might think well of what this judge who is well is entitled to some great degree of respect that a decision maker a magistrate judge says you know logically if you were just thinking logically if your life depended on getting right whether it was probable cause or not would you want to know that there had been this decision wouldn't you think that that would be something you'd kind of like to know now wherever it is too dangerous opposite your honor i think it's so prejudicial because it is not relevant it is just an opinion of a court that we were not i was not there that the defendants were not there the defendants were not able to put on their case the defendants were not able right their arguments that's why the argument that it is determined to live is i think correctly a losing argument and to take it as and then as from reiterating ultimately be admitted i would like a district judge to make the balance based on how logically relevant is it as against indicated i think he's being overly cautious and to take it a step further i think it's taking the function of the jury away from them they made a determination as to what happened based on the testimony of the actual witnesses and participants in this case and they spoke loudly and clearly in the jury questionnaire the special on iraq authorities on these issues of fact and based on that they determined as was as is their function that there was probable cause to arrest and taking it even a step further based on those factual determinations decided again going going further in an expression of caution decided that the defendants were entitled to some or it's a judgment as a matter of law on the qualified immunity issue so with all those things being was arresting officer and he was to complain so i think he had an opportunity to pay for his defense in the in the other court because he arrested me without a warrant or probable cause  told the story lie he never testified the records clearly shows he never testified and he was the one who falsely arrested me he was the one who assaulted me he was the one who initiated everything all the other officers came to  cause that was my determination and they took the appeal they said they didn't have a chance to argue but they took the appeal and actually won and then it came back again and then the judge told them the county court told instructed them  make sure you look he instructed through a look and see the credibility of the officers and make your ruling after you determine the credibility of the officer that's what he instructed just for your role to do and when when he came back to court conduct and he also testified there was no one at the bus stop where the arrest was made so i am going to determine that there was no probable cause and the case is dismissed that was after an appeal that day one that his clients had put everything forward going back and forth because they said date that will be it was a probable cause they said they had it and they did the court started just total fear rolling to determine