all the points that hopefully need to be covered with the district court judge was confronted with certain questions of law that she did not address the probable cause was a question the same thing the school records are historically accurate and you also have another off school attendance officer who says the same time so he had  doing that way did it in reference to this guy and he had never had this kind of problem  record i mean you're telling me he will out on school record that said she had custody all right so what changed his mind about his reliance on the school rec custody of the child but i suspect that that's out of happens but that's not that that's more of a friendly inquiry but to her argument but as i'm trying to understand the mechanics of this get seems like i the school attendance officer to contact the home or place of residence find the child inform the parents and school officials where the child is physically lo neither a parent a guardian and had no legal status with respect to that child known the same day he spoke to ms blake and she says i don't have this child the court returned  the court returned home to his mother he called the mother who confirmed i have the child and child has been because the child's been sick and we have that information and then spoke the stepfather who resigned it with the mother of the child who said this household is on stage statutorily he had a ministerial duty bill let the court know that months before which he ignored that doesn't establish the constitutional violation but it goes to the heart of his good faith argument when he violates ministerial duties involving the health and welfare o question which obviates that but i can assure you having raised three boys and put them through mississippi school the school records probably yes and let's look at the school record setter the school record its only were sitting there at the time that he's charging marquardt he conducted no investigation despite the fact that he was duty bound to he made allegations never broke a law in her life whose only crime was to be available for a six year old child who was moved from a home didn't neglect and abuse and who w court ordered her to give that child she did with a court order and when she was notified of nonattendance she did call and she says i don't have this child she's a head start teacher a year after the charges were brought in a letter telling her you're going to lose your job because of this trial that charge now is expunged she never should have been charged is with blame he is the contact i contact and contact he says he's not with me he's got a duty under the mississippi code to let the school know where the child is and he completely ignore and i believe that judge a cop was correct this report was correct when she identified genuine issues of material fact that precluded a grant a qualified immunity or dismissal of the  including what was going on in this man's head when he behaved in the irrational manner in which he had transferred your question judge graves what did he know on june fourteenth and what did he here telling him that the mother had the kid and confirming the conversation with the stepfather that the kid was with the mother in an unstable household that's what he looked at because  the problem is he sends this letter in september when there's bob and that he presumably there's a follow up call and i'm taking it for granted what they're saying is correct so in january before there are sixteen absences he says he's presented with this quandary and he doesn't look for the child so what he's hired to do that's why he gets paid this hour and to notify the school of that information he wants t misdirection or misleading of the magistrate so i think the first questions answered and then i think you get the second question the use of a three part test now it's a two part test and honestly it's all over the place and it's a disaster and it's whatever the reasons for it that's why i want to try to frame the question we have to deal with the difficulty of the law itself i think the district court gave the proper framework for this case which is assessed the constitutional right and was it clearly is that that's an easy check mark then the second question of is a reasonable official in mr lambert she's on notice that filing an insufficient affidavit against a citizen or misleading in the magistrate is unconstitutional and i don't think that's really difficult question in this it might be more difficult in another case but in this case i don't see any recklessness i don't know what it could be i think if you look at that we provided to draw all grid is showing his state of mind shortly thereafter you can infer some form of the house you can certainly concluding competent and incompetence precludes him from grant a qualified immunity this court as always and in fact did so recently and in the josh versus respect to the sheriff's request because i mean there's no reason to shield what i think any reasonable officer or judicial officer would conclude is blatantly incompetent by mr lambert which resulted in an innocent woman be returned to the custody of the mother and that karr will play was no longer responsible for the child these were his day lambert statements made to josh all of rage after he dropped the and the only thing that changed in between then and now is that a lawyer came in and figured out maybe we can get out of this some ball of fun unity and we'll raise the fact that there's a school record a part of you listed as a contact well that ought to be enough because it said you were contact and how do we know that because he told josh aldridge some time where you were mr lambert told me that he thought that karma blake did not have a leg to stand on against them because your name was still listed based on hall from his late if you read judge moore's affidavit she was notified by d h yes mom because the child was in the system he had a guardian a there was a youth court proceeding there were d h esque workers all of these people are supposed to be working in union together for the benefit of these children so when this worker the custody of the person he was preparing to file a criminal affidavit he chose to ignore that's not objective and reasonable and he should be made to bear his responsibility for it if a the school was involved in that knew about it and this goal made a mint may have made a mistake when i told mr lambert that ms boy was the responsible forty forty for this child but if you stick to the summary judgment evidence