calendar this morning i've attempted to be very serious in my presentation i don't want to attempt to rehash the arguments presented in the briefs simply i would like to present to the court defense requ factors are concerned the court should be aware as it does analysis that the system of parole administration utilized by the state of california is somewhat peculiar with regard to traditional parole and second the allegations of the complaint presented here and suggest strongly the system is out of control important because the california situation doesn't mesh well with a lot of precedent cases the lack of control should be a concern because where the supreme court defined parole as being essentially early release in exchange for the offenders promise to abide by certain rules that's not what happens in california under california law is mandatory on determinant in sentencing law and offender must serve his full term there is no provision whatever for early release the only deductions from whatever the sentences come in the form of specify and earn time credits they may be good conduct credits education credits work rights for him but that's the only reduction it should be noted that in the system according to the policy guidelines of the department of corrections the pro agents the p and g s d people have no role and no function in the adjudication or parole rather cation hern they may be called as witnesses in which case they would be of course participating in the decision making process but they are not required to be and it's not policy that they in fact  finally and this peculiarity someone important most of the case and tend to mix probation and parole all under one ha can be confirmed and verified if you will analyze the activities undertaken by any parole enforcement agent the parole field for was entitled to quasars judicial and you in anderson specifically the plaintiff repeated the crime story alleged that he had been repeatedly arrested and placed on bail for all holds pending investigation but analogy that doesn't quite fit because in this series of events we're talking about a person who's already been convicted of a crime we're talking about her and we're talking about the coefficients whose job it is to implement and be part analogy between that and an arresting police officer arresting police officer can have standards of probable cause and the like what's what's the functional difference  very good move by the district court instructing the plaintiff to come forward with crisp allegations showing that he's defendants had engaged in functions and activities that were not covered by and that is because they have to exercise their discretionary judgment as a part of their function what would you compare the conduct of these officers you it may be closer to a prosecutor than a judge i believe just very recently this court in fact extended grazed by judicial immunity to members of the idaho medical board i apologize i don't recall the case i believe it was just within the last few days but so when the prosecutor makes the decision it's based upon his or her interstate compact unit it's important in both cases our case and anderson her supporting the crux of the matter was the issue of this parole o judicial acts are in fact the rendering of the decision settling disputes between the parties when those parties are dealing with that individual in that decision making