actors abandoned their roles as prosecutors and thereby gave up any claim they may have to absolute immunity and those are separate arguments that i wish to elaborate with respect to the first argument there were flagrant abuses and uses of administrative subpoenas at a point in time over the course of about a year when it's done several hundreds of peanuts were issued in the investigative phase where there was a team that was investigating both civil and criminal allegations at the same time and we would contend that the mixture of that process calling people in by subpoena without giving them their rights without necessarily having an case which preceded going to the grand jury the attorney general basically launched an unlimited fishing expedition against my clients with a view toward seeking any kind of remedies  a constitutional right that is violated it's a simple due process right to put somebody in a position where he is being attacked with criminal charges and with civil charges all across the board lifted the stay and gave us i believe about two weeks time in which to further brief the issue we asked that time if we could amend the complaint we were not given that opportunity were only given the opportunity to greet the issue well complaint because he found prosecutorial immunity it didn't matter more specifically what we allege at that point because his finding was quite clear he found as a broad issue that all of the acts many of which are enumerated in the supreme court decision which is a matter of the record many of which were numerous and in our briefs he found that all of those acts by all of these actors would be entitled to absolute immunity and it is that broad finding which we just agree with more specifically and i think there is a basis in the record i started with the administrative subpoenas to which we've objected from the inception in addition to that this record is fraught with the policy and practice of continual evade excuse me attempted persistently even after the subpoenas were ordered to be quiet in a criminal case persistently attempted to obtain information from the insurance company that was clearly of a qualified nature and if that had been already in the record but we submitted the exhibits which were attached which demonstrate that argument the subpoena the notice of deposition all of the documents by which the attorney general's office sought that information there was conduct before the grand jury which amounted to in our view violations that even despite the state of the law with respect to absolute immunity for for act related to the prosecutor function we submit goes beyond the realm and those acts have to do with specifically providing the testimony of investigators who gave opinions about the credibility of witnesses about their legal duties and these were the attorney general's own included have said that where prosecutor step outside of their historical role and present information for example click on the supreme court where they were factual representations made as opposed to the presentation of the case by across cuter but i was too over the factual and if that were raised as opposed to everything in this case the factual matters that were raised by the investigators who testified for the group for the grand jury were first of all the attorney general or the prosecutor listen opinions which are essentially his own opinions as to the quality of the case and the ultimate legal duties yes that is improper testimony that's improper action by a prosecutor that goes well beyond the function of presenting the evidence itself and allowing the grand jury to determine if there is probable cause a grand jury has the right to reject a case but if the grand jury  there was evidence with respect to applications for wanted some facts that were provided by a prosecutor which was alleged to be factual information and the argument is basically when the prosecutor oversteps and provide some sort of back door discussion like the how do you know it was budgeted because there was subsequent testimony by bishop estate people first across from mr franz he was not involved in the negotiations at all but that on this record yes  five years later we have many more facts that we never had the opportunity to present because we did not have the chance to discovery in this case we did not have a chance to amend the complaint and we did not have a chance to particular reasons why i believe the claims against mr jones and me have been abandoned and two i have the privilege of serving as head of the appellate section of the department if turning before it's up i can hear you all right but you want to make sure i know you three although my name does not appear on the prefer i wrote every word of it and for and i think this is the most important reason all the athletes asked me to argue the case on their behalf to hear today the reasons for absolute immunity for prosecutors have nothing to do with any individual prosecutor and everything to do with maintaining and protecting the judicial process the public policy is that we want prosecutors the same as judges do to discharge their responsibilities free of point out that the complaint as to the investigation under hawaii revised statutes twenty yes to two point five i thought had been abandoned that did not seem to be an issue and i made the appeal brief and i advocate for the state in involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom preparation the scores back your question mark interviewing witnesses both  sentence that is why the buckley case turned out the way it did their mission their being the prosecutors their mission at that time was entirely investigative and character and here evidence that it's absolutely i'm unit so he's so he would have to prove that there was all these other things going on that had no relationship to any grand jury to any preparation to any initiation of any thought of much of what we complain about happened in the fury of time well before my client was and that was investigated and that is part of what we continue but we also contend that there were as i said an extended period of three separate efforts to invite my client before grand juries each of which turned out to be televised each of which was a gift and why are you two was of a certain point in certain result a person steps outside his or her office and is motivated by engages in actions which are clearly unprofessional clearly unethical and clearly unconstitutional i would s about the fact that this alleged chinese why was set up but the sponsor sat on top of it and that's not a chinese while she was making all the decisions directing the civil deputies directing the criminal deputies in a campaign to go after my client and his family members and that was not that was not motivated by justice that was motivated by something else and we believe the judge case would be instructive as this court instead most recently this last summer i understand your problem and i accept the problem but i think there was an explanation given the procedural history of this case and the limitations that were placed upon us over the long period of time that did not enable us to go back and reopen