presenting argument behalf of agent breeden given the way the briefs have been set out i would like to focus my argument today on the arguable probable cause element of the qualified immunity issue addressed by the district court we here today were seeking review of the district court's denial of the officers motions to dismiss the section one hundred eighty three claims on the basis of qualified immunity district court concluded that the allegations of the consolidated amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs below were sufficient to allege facts which  proved would establish would defeat a claim that the officers had arguable probable cause to seek warrants for the arrest of these officers we believe that was error and we would like the court to reverse we've laid out in our brief why we believe the disc was wrong we think that our my argument in my brief is that the court apply the incorrect legal standard in determining whether or not there was arguable probable cause in this case and that if you buy the correct legal standard that it's clear that these officers had arguable probable cause and that nothing that the plaintiffs of alleged was was improper with the warrant applications was sufficient to overcome isn't there arguable probable cause to believe even if you included everything in the underlying affidavits that which was given to the judge and that which wasn't all when in let's just say wasn't there arguable probable cause to show that the officers owed fees for off duty work and the office failed to report on duty work absolutely and that's key ok tell me why because the issues that they've alleged in the complaints that were omitted and that's important we're talking about omissions here there's no suggestion by the district court that these officers lied or fabricated any evidence of these cases about alleged omissions choices by the officers as to what to put in this affidavit but even when you look at what they've alleged should have been in the affidavit none of that goes to the evidence and state well the statements and testimony in the affidavits by these officers about the failure to report off duty hours ok so what crime thousand a few thousand dollars and i don't have the breakdown exactly for just the underreporting because the affidavits breakdown double reporting under reporting into different categories double reporting while there was over there was double dipping what they were calling double dipping which was working for outside employment and also collecting pay for working for them but there certainly wasn't double reporting involved duty hours worked correctly and that my my use of words might have been in artful but there was  overlapping an allegation of in the affidavit of overlapping hours where they would put in for hours at off duty employment but then those hours of reflected time they also appeared to be paid for the time they were on duty at the police department but all of the things that they talk about talk about the authority of the police department the town of golden beach to charge them for the fee and the fact and the record keeping and everything that had to do with the hours that they actually did report to the town that they were working for these contractors it doesn't address any of the evidence any of the information in the affidavits that was presented to the court judge in the warrant application for the hours and that they worked they never told the town about what that layout a charge for fraud it is supportive charge for fraud yes but that fraud charge would be in addition to the over an overarching charge of official misconduct these are police officers the public servants this is a public corruption investigation that's what these officers loyal and  enforcement investigates public corruption right what i'm asking specifically is whether or not if you include within the affidavit the affidavit that which was omitted could a reasonable officer farin do or believe that there was arguable probable cause to believe that there was a fraud here by the defendant officers by the criminal defendant yes by judge along with the information that was in the affidavit that arguable probable cause would that probable cause with that would in fact would still exist for the warrant this is basically a franks time and choir absolutely all those standards different qualified immunity standpoint as it relates to the federal claims that there were state law claims for which the probable cause analysis would also apply as a defense we argued everything below or here  review the county has me ask you this you there were four charges one well for crimes charge one had eleven counts and others had a single count suppose we find their arguable probable cause after adding back and subtracting out and so forth enough to support one but not the other three what effect does that have on the malicious prosecution calling it's a complete defense your honor the law is clear that as long as there arguable probable cause for any offense it doesn't even have to be the offense for which the warrant was soft i know that the law has to rest because if you're arrested on one charge you're arrested on fo charges you're still arrested in the fourth amendment protects against the seizure you go macy's to him for one in for all except her but is malicious prosecution different is is the type of harm that you suffer not seizure that's the arrest but the prosecutorial on the prosecution harm different if there are three charges that shouldn't be in there because there's no because it's a tort basically to prosecute you on those three but not on the first one if we're talking about the caught the toward a malicious prosecution in and of itself as a state law independent state law cl not in the context of the section one thousand nine hundred three qualified immunity analysis that i have an answer to your honest question i have it as part of the nine hundred eighty three well if you look at in the context of the one thousand nine hundred three then that question only comes into play in the question of whether or not there's been a fourth amendment violation because that's a an overriding question for qualified immunity because in order to have a one thousand nine hundred three claim based on a concept of malicious prosecution you have to have a seizure in violation of the fourth amendment and then the state law common law elements of malicious prosecution so if the warrant was constitutionally valid because that was arguable problem well because it was  there was probable cause for any charge then you don't even make that threshold of the one nine hundred eighty three claim but you would have had a seizure but you would not necessarily have had the same harm from the seizure you i don't mean to interrupt i think the way i would look at it is that if you had a constitutionally valid seizure no franks violation and you don't get in court but suppose the charge that there was arguable problem calls for the bail would have been thousand dollars but since you got four other the bell is fifty thousand dollars but if there's arguable probable cause then the defendant but arguable probable cause only to the one that would have gotten you five thousand is my would have to determine what to do with the district with the state look at the cases because we're here on the denial of a motion to dismiss except to the extent they feed into the nine hundred eighty three malicious prosecution because you have to satisfy the helmets of  honor because if you're if this court finds that there was arguable probable cause which again as i said if there was a there was argue a probable cause for if the affidavit after doing the franks analysis showed probable cause for any crime then there's arguable probable cause and there's qualified immunity from the entire just repeating the conclusion and i know that it's a valid conclusion as to the rest but i'm not sure it's valid as to the malicious prosecution well i think that  it grants the defendants the officer defense in this case qualified immunity from the federal claims and then what the district court does with the pendent state law claims may be a separate issue but we're here on a review of requests for dismissal of the federal claims based on qualified immunity and i would be the entire federal playing ok to the extent that you were travelling on the theory of arguable probable cause for grand theft as i read a grand theft in the third degree property stolen valued at three hundred or more but less than five thousand according to the pi as affidavit the value of the double billing in the case of pius was two hundred twelve parks so you can make that correct and that was in reviewing whether you include everything or not there's just no way arguable or not there's just no probable cause no arguable probable cause for grand theft that's going on isn't it the stuff that they say in paragraph twenty nine was left but not present for all of the crimes that may be correct your honor what's your best one so i think that the arguments been made that one is enough but if you can't make one than you lose in the district court got it right so i will you tell me what offense was there arguable probable cause for including within the materials for review not just what was in the affidavit but what ought to included so i would say that the official misconduct charges because those dealt with submitting false paperwork that those would be ones which which would be supported when you do the franks analysis also in the cases where the threshold amount  that your honor mentioned before is met for grand theft and in cases in the case of peters for the insurance fraud to the extent that the insurance adjustor felt that what was not just tell you to pay the administrative fees arguably yields official misconduct arguably yields fraud those are two distinct offenses right right which is the clear of the t you think the same evidence goes equally to both it could go to both your honor i think you have the official misconduct with the paperwork submitted but you also have the fraud to the extent that it was an incorrect or or fraudulent statement about what  actually occurred i also want to make the point that there's a couple of key allegations in paragraph twenty four and also thirty six of the complaint that the town of golden beach sort of led these officers down this path and had the opportunity to make clear that nothing had been done in the way of wrongdoing but didn't do so at any point and they make that allegation even as to the three years between when the the arrest affidavit was sworn out and the charges were dropped and in the close out memo the prosecution makes the point that they had recently learned by depositions taken then that they could no longer support the charges to all reasonable doubt and so i think when you consider those allegations together that the golden beach officials never made clear that no wrongdoing had occurred then you have to think about what the officers actually knew our officers actually knew at the time they swore out the affidavit and so i don't think they've adequately pled that the that they are investigating officers knew all of that stuff in paragraph twenty nine that they claim we left out at that time so i would point that out to the court secondly even if even if we did know those things those things are at best defenses conflicts in the evidence this is not d n a evidence this is not a situation where you have a video that would exonerate them things that we left out in that manner and we believe that under this court's preceden particularly daal the holly that an officer is allowed to make judgments even reasonable misjudgments with argue will probably cause as to what the significance of those competing pieces of evidence are and we think they did that appropriately here even under the allegations i'd like to move in now to clearly establish law the apple leaves have argued in the district court found that the law was clearly established at the time that the arrest affidavit source worn out that that that an officer may not lie in an arrest affidavit and that's problematic on two levels one it's too general and too that's not these facts first it's too general because the supreme court has said that courts should not define qualified immunity for the clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes at a high level of generality to say that an officer cannot lie in an arrest affidavit is like saying an officer cannot effect an arrest with excessive force it doesn't tell us anything about what an officer in a particular circumstance can do no because you cannot lie is not application along to facts cannot lie as a historical fact you told the truth about something are intentionally did not tell the truth all but on the other hand the other example you give is not a historical fact or pure historical fact so why is or can't a law in a arrest affidavit about a material fact why isn't that so obvious it doesn't need any previous decision directly on point as to what the law is which i think the way that i would answer that is to say that because you're dealing with probable cause it's always fact intensive and so which is why it's important not to was correct correct your honor but here the and that would pivot into my second point which i would say here this is not a case where the officers are alleged to have just blatantly lied about what happened it's whether they failed to appreciate certain evidence that might have cut in favor of the plaintiffs and whether they should have included that and i think that that's the circumstance that the law needs to be clearly established under for purposes of this case so you're saying they didn't intentionally lie correct there are there in the play and you know in the problem with the studying  clearly establish that you can't lie in an affidavit is it should have been qualified the law is clearly established or anybody would know it's so obvious that you can't intentionally lie about a material fact and affidavit i think that would be a fair with vision your honor but again it must be particularized to that particular context that you're in so it can't be the law is only clearly established that you can't lie about material facts relating to whether the officers reported all off duty work in an affidavit unless we've got a case on point on that it's not a denial of coffee and it can't be that in other words you're saying it can't be doesn't have to be that specific can't be that specific about it otherwise you would always have qualified immunity no matter what you lot about until we had and you know century or more in the future had covered all possible permutations of lies that you could come up with right now i would agree with that your honor but i think that you do need something in a case like this where you have an investigation that went on for a year and a half multiple sources of information material fact and you could still get qualified immunity if there's no case that said that i would have thought that are some things have such obvious clarity that a law enforcement officer would have to know that he can lie about a material fact and seeking a warrant and if he does he don't need a case he can't he doesn't need a case or point i mean i don't need a case to shield you understand what i'm getting at i'm hard pressed to understand how it could be that i have no officer could get qualified immunity knowing we were going about a material fact on the theory that well is no case that told me he couldn't counsel are you speaking explicitly of lying or at the extent to which the officer relied on other information provided to him by colleagues yes your honor i think it's more of the latter in other words where there's a mix of information yeah but i want you to come back to my question can an officer knowingly lie about a material fact and still get to the issue at hand i couldn't imagine anyone suggesting just speaking for myself that a law enforcement officer can get knowingly go before a neutral magistrate and lie about a material fact and still think he could get qualified immunity i agree with you on the theory that there's no case point i agree with your honor that would be so obvious that i don't need a case to tell me right correct but but again i would just go back to that in this circumstance this is not a case where the officer the facts were and the officer said b and that you know that there is there was a mix of information and conflicting information that the officers were not required to sift through and that you know and that you have to do you do have to consider the particular circumstances they confronted in assessing whether the  briefly i would just like to say that we don't believe on the supervisory claims that they that they've been sufficiently plaid the district court found half of them were not and the ones in the general allegations but then in the specific counts that those had been sufficiently alleged but those there basically said that our supervisors knew about what happened because of what was in the investigative reports but it is very clear that knowledge based on what you know knowledge of what your subordinate did is not sufficient to establish yes your honor and this is gone through a series of rounds if you will in terms of trying to reach that threshold legal threshold in terms of submitting a supervisory claim against appellate breed and i you know certainly don't have to go over the legal standard terms of what should have been done but what should have been done was the court should have stripped away all of the legal conclusions if you will  bar and i think where it got a little messy below is that the court in our position attributed well pleaded allegations when they were truly  legal conclusions and the court below concentrated on seven paragraphs in the joint consolidate consolidated pleading and when you really break down those seven paragraphs and for the record there were paragraphs seventy nine eighty five one seventy three one seventy nine to sixty seven three thirty seven and three forty three  if you take those numbers if you will there is really only one paragraph attributable to appellate breeden in terms of what if anything he did to rise to the level of supervisory liability terms of pleading a claim and of course piercing his veil of qualified immunity and what one paragraph one seventy three is the same as paragraph seventy nine to sixty seven three thirty seven and three forty three and eighty five and one seventy nine those paragraphs have nothing to do with bring and when you go through what was pled in those in that paragraph which paragraph one seventy three your honor and there's basically three subsections to those and if you go through the subsections for example  the first one it states actively participated in supervising the agent's alleged unconstitutional conduct conclusory the facts whatsoever subsection two discusses directing movie to engage in unconstitutional conduct again no facts nothing that would push it into the plausibility category as required by twamley and if you go into subsection three and it actually invokes a deliberate agent or supervisor age in this case acted with deliberate different is again conclusory in fact we cited franklin v currie in our moving brief and that was a phrase if you will that this court specifically determine carries in the way now beginning candor to the tribunals there are differences as you go into that third subsection that deal with things that warrant or allegations that warrant in the proceeding complaint  i think it's notable that the court in paragraph twenty five a not to get confused with all these numbers but rejected as not complying with a number of allegations that the that in this particular case apple peters asserted such as knowing in approving a participant such as misrepresenting evidence manipulating evidence deliberately ignoring exculpatory substantial exculpatory evidence rather those were rejected and then when it looks like they did is they shuffle the deck so to speak used a bunch of equivalent type of terms but yet there's no facts as required by twaddling a ball and it's the most specific subsection that you want to devote your time to because it's your biggest well i think specifically honor and to move right to that point if you look into the third subsection and again like i was stating before in canada the court you'll see that there are allegations that appellant breanne was made aware by most of the appellant breeden was made aware by the investigative reports breen was aware by the evidence and again it goes into the approved and allowed type standard how is there this knowledge of substantial risk with any facts if they're going in to falsify is the court had some inquiries about a half a david there's no facts about that again it just seems like what they did in the pleading is take the same type of phrases honor the point i was trying to make is that the allegations that were actually rejected by the district court in paragraph twenty five are practically the same as those that are in paragraph one seventy three but yes i agree with you the court i see my time is up while it's fresh could you address paragraphs one twenty one seventy three and his argument as to breed as to breed in that i believe the position is that judge leonard below rightfully decided that there were sufficient facts pled to at least plausibly a legit cause of action i think that's what's required by it paul and tuam believe the facts that were pled as to breed and also as to as to sullivan the other supervisor were that in those paragraphs that they were made aware of the situation of the falsity of the information or the the false information they were made aware of is and i believe the allegation really made aware of all of the false information well out of the one of the faults they were made aware of the following statement in the affidavit and its fals it's a paragraph i'm going to go to your honor paragraph and this repeated paragraph throughout the complaint image there are several paragraphs of the allegation that i'm going to focus on because i have in front of me is paragraph seventy nine and eighty these deal with breeden as to paez but we understand the judge leonard ruled that mr breeden was not specifically a supervisor of maulvi as to buy as and as to d s but was asked to lindy in peter's but the same ones he focused on one seventy three and said one seventy three is where the where we allege that the brain was made aware by maulvi of or invest and her investigative reports and by his review of the evidence and testimony garnered any crime had been committed reviewed approved and allowed movie to make the deliberately false misleading statements in the rest of his argument is and it's quite a plot plausible argument is that that doesn't tell him what specific allegations in those affidavits he was made and his client was made aware were fall in other words if you'd said every single allegation if i that maybe that i guess the problem is that i understand your issue your honor is that we didn't specify which particular omissions or which particular false statements were were relied on by breathing or reviewed by breathing allegations as to what they left out of their affidavit is how they misrepresented in their affidavits and that goes all the way back to paragraphs to leave twenty five and specifically twenty nine a three j all those specifics are in there as to why how they misrepresented in the affidavits what they left out what exculpatory information testimony they had available to them all of this information i mean if you take even golden beach out of the picture and golden beach had a separate responsibility and we've played that but that's not before your honor's today was before your honor's as to what the and loyal did and their supervisors and malviya loyal what they did here is present affidavits they they were aware in a very lengthy investigation they were they received statements from witnesses including people from golden beach including the town manager of the as i asked to various issues that direct or actually materially direct liability we apply and regardless of whether or not the pleadings were sufficiently detailed to meet the plausibility requirements  there would have to be some unconstitutional acts on the part of most of the o loyal loyal before there could have been any violation by the supervisors right so if in fact there was an arguable probable cause for a single crime and they're for the agents were entitled to qualified immunity there would be no theory by which the supervisors would not equally be entitled to qualified immunity right i would have to agree with you that's what the ok so let's go to the underlying conduct i take it you would also agree that if there was an arguable probable cause to support one crime that would be enough they wouldn't have to show all four of them i believe the standard as the case law is ok so tell me here more particularly why there was an arguable probable cause arising out of a criminal offense arising out of the feluda pay the administrative fees as i looked at the evidence  looked at the spread sheets and the invoice records of the off duty officers i looked at the requirement to pay the fees as even by captain burroughs he and the financial director camacho saying that officers working off duty were required to pay fees for the g b p d and the same invoices that was submitted our if you compare the invoices submitted to the spreadsheets there were substantial discrepancies in those spreadsheets between what was reflected as off duty hours and what was reported why wouldn't there be arguable probable cause all your honor emerging from just from from that couldn't a a reasonable officer believe one the officers owed fees for off duty work they were obliged to pay off and they failed in material ways in a substantial number of instances to report off duty work why wouldn't that yield arguable probable cause if you will include everything new that you say should have been included with everything old that was included right franks type of a now yes or yes your only with the twist is judge cons put it to you that argue will cause under the case law is enough so it's not every even have to show that there really was probable cause all they have to show is that a reasonable officer who would have under these circumstances believed there was probable cause and i'm asking you to tell me why a reasonable officer could not believe that there was a violation arising out of the alleged knowing willful and continuous failure to pay administrative fees in multiple instances if i go to the allegations in the complaint and we've always got the right focus on that paragraph twenty nine right if you look at all those these are the events or these are the issues and omissions and failure to include certain information and evidence from the affidavits that would not even if you put them into the affidavits would not even make arguable probable cause i can point out to you very specific ones the i think is twenty nine b they had a sworn statement two thousand and ten this is loyal in their investigation have sworn statement from the gold beach finance director camacho that these three gentlemen had actually paid and over paid their administrative fees they knew that they had that information of the work that into the affidavit there's no crime committed because on  everything are the work that was written that they reported that's no of everything very fine how can he know as to the work they hadn't reported this is another issue your honor there's also a paragraph i believe is paragraph twenty nine d and twenty nine t where the records that they're claiming in their affidavit are accurate representing is accurate spreadsheet it was based on information that would involve forgeries involve other officers substituting their own information but let's be more more particular the spread sheets fail to reflect off duty hours in the following ways by pay as peters and dia and the case apply as it was two hundred forty seven hours one hundred twenty seventh one thousand and twelve hundred thirty seven dollars in unpaid fees thirty seven days between december of eight and september of nine in the case of peters it was one hundred ninety five hundred ninety nine hours ninety nine hundred ninety seven bucks and unpaid fees twenty one dates but tween december of zero eight and september of zero nine and the case of d s three hundred forty four hours facts that were known that would have undermined or guarded p c unarguable the p c one the only written document a policy referencing charging administrative fee w occult twenty nine of the c b a two d s was a part time employee not covered by the c b a three the golden beach town manager announced once they've been said officers would regularly pay the fees and for camacho's says that the plaintiffs had fully paid the fees there's at that hotel is there more than that there's more your honor what else is there that i didn't read sheet that they're claiming is the accurate document of what they're setting forth is based on and they knew this was based on forged and corrupt the documents altered documents other police officers there's evidence they got the other police officers went in and created documents for other police officers forged the documents we just know that they received evidence that these documents were forged these documents were altered other police officers were able to go in these were not protected documents and you know you do allege that they were forged to make it appear that your clients had worked hours they had not worked is that the allegation are to his or just the spreadsheet that covers more officers than your clients some of the information was forged it was it was more officers and just our clients but no but do you allege that the forged information indicated in was the forgeries were that your clients had worked more hours than they reported we have alleged that allege that in the complaint that there were forgeries that specifically deal with our clients and that made it appear that your clients had worked more hours then they had actually work if somebody forged you to show they work fewer hours than they reported you wouldn't have a that's true that's true did you allege specifically in the complaint that the forgeries made it appear that your clients had worked more hours than they reported and that the defendants were aware that there were forgeries which made it appear that your clients who work more hours than they reported not specifically asked of my clients rather i have a list that they were forged and corrupt the documents you were not accurate documents they knew it they didn't disclose it if they had disclose that information which what that's the reduce will minimum standard there's also some other evidence that was also admitted there that we failed to mention it was also as if they had done let's don't leave then yes what good would it do your clients to establish that other folks who are affected by forgeries if they don't even plead that their reporting was affected by forgeries it's going to the reliability of what they're isn't it it's not in the context of what happened here when the focus was on these officers they were in it all the officers they're investigating my guys i know which means that what's material is what the forgeries were as to your guys in onder stand you to say you didn't even plead there were any forgeries as to your gas problem is we don't know for sure until we get into discovery and all that stuff we can't get to that point yet we are to pleading stage read a complaint stage stating a plausible cause of action but you don't we're entitled to plausible cause of action there's also another item of evidence of scalp authority information that in addition to looking at the spreadsheet they had g p s done of these officers they had surveillance done of these officers taking that into consideration as the arch specific officers they had disclosed that that turned out to be a complete negative as to them doing what they were doing and that it also goes if you put that into the arrest affidavit that would also show that there's a lack of even are you bill probable cause only if it contradicted the the hours that the defendants thought your clients were working and hadn't report right and are you we haven't specifically said that in the complain admittedly have not said that how we have said that that information that was left out of the affidavit would have shown that they were not engaging in the conduct that the engaged in not gauging any criminal conduct whatsoever with regard to not reporting their outwards or not going  or doing hours that they didn't report to the town of golden beach and we also have the you know the information that they paid all the administrative fees we also have information that they or they had information that from himself saying that these officers were allowed to pay their their fees late that they didn't have to pay fees they didn't feel that they were a victim of a crime this is a victimless crime in this particular case they were alleged of doing the kind of golden beach is not the victim of anything here  they were aware that they were fully aware that from their investigation that they went forward with these arrest affidavit is an arrest of these officers and then that resulted in the militias prosecution your honor to cite the law and we do want to address this issue of on and arrest affidavit or failing to include material exculpatory information on arrest affidavit i think you colleague conceded that knowingly lying about a material was we don't i don't think you know i think the law is clear for whatever it's worth to you speaking for myself that you can't knowingly lie about a material matter or even not just i mean there was some argument made on the first argument about the  you know it was an issue of only fabrication and that's not enough it's not just fabrication if you go to the kingsland case is not just lying it's also failing to include material it scope atory information in the kingsland case is actually an interesting case because there there was an investigation like here that led up to the ultimate arrest and the police officer failed to there was a lot of exculpatory information there that they failed to put in the arrest affidavit in the hell that that particular case which was a summary judgment case not a motion to dismiss case that there were issues of fact at the very least that a jury should decide on this issue of arguable probable cause and that there was plausible facts number one to establish the violations the nine hundred eighty three violation number two to get past the qualified immunity defenses thank you ron thank you mr hanna you have a couple minutes just briefly touch on a couple of points the affidavits didn't vouch for the accuracy of the information provided by the town and in fact they noted specifically that the information from the spreadsheets was provided by the with subject accuracy was dependent on the information of the town to provide but more importantly their own pleadings their own attachments are in self contradictory because they show when you look at the t circumstances here that this was a year over year long investigation the town was involved in this investigation for a year the town knew what was going on here the town never provided as they knowledge in their notice letters to the town of golden beach never did anything to dissuade these officers from the investigation track that they were on about the allegation that the spread sheets themselves which provides the core showing the disparity between what they reported and what they were whole blige to report was forged well again that's not admitted lee it's stated at a high order of abstraction it doesn't particular eyes one officer as opposed to another it just makes that assertion but what about the assertion itself again your that's not the allegation as i recall your out of the allegation is that the time records on which the the and we're now we're reading from where in the complaint are graphed twenty nine f is the allegation is that the time records on which they base their claims of double compensation were completed by other officers and had been altered or had been forged and the paragraph g is that unspecified hey roll time there's no say was and and even forged and even forged ok but more to the point your honor there was no allegation that this spreadsheet which was made specifically for the officers by the town in connection with the investigation knowing not they didn't fill out paperwork to report something they didn't report so these spreadsheets could not have been get that the officers didn't get the information about the and reported hours from documents from the town they subpoena those records from the actual contractors the demonio group condit america the companies that these offices were doing the work for they looked at those records and they those records showed when the offices were be were actually on duty so off duty at the police office of the police department working for these contractors and then went to the town and said do you have any records to show this anybody reported to you that that these folks were working at this time there's no allegation in the complaint that the any records were destroyed the name but he was shredding records in a back room and w thank you just really briefly again i would just reiterate that one of the keith points as well they've well they've alleged that our officers knew about each of these things such as the forgery and so forth if you take a look at the close out memo attaches exhibit the complaint and the lead in to that as to what was recently discovered in two thousand and fourteen compare that to what's in twenty nine you'll see a lot of similarities and then take a look at paragraph thirty six which says at no time between when the arrest affidavits were sworn out and when the close out memo was done by the prosecution did golden beach make the our officers aware of any of this and the depositions they're talking about is being recently done in tw fourteen were of the town officials so i think that's very key as to whether they've shown what we knew at the time we did those affidavits that aside i think that as your honour's have asked  allegations are not pointed enough as to in what respects and as to what officers these documents were altered or forged and in some cases like take paragraph paragraph twenty nine easy where it says so he says in fairness they really can't do that without some discovery it's enough he says to assert with particularity that the spreadsheet was forged or at least the underlying documents upon which officers knew about it at the time and if the basis and this is an inference i'm making but if the basis for the stuff that they put in paragraph twenty nine is the close out memo done three years later then i think that you know they have to have some other knowledge to allege that we knew at that time ok thank you counsel right thank you