thrown out of court second was the issue that i hold dear here and that is the facts according to the defendants was precluded by the court's ruling on the nine one motion back on to the property i'm saying he turned and started to talk to me officer collin the nazi or whatever sinister racket and blah blah blah and that's not disputed and started in the direction of coming back onto the go toward the front of the building i remained in the parking lot the officer came and got me and arrested me in the parking lot the jason to the st james hotel i did not as the as the officer claimed start washing off the sidewalk toward the front door  why and then there was the key issue on whether or not state court recognizes a claim for negligent employment against on duty police officers and i'll defer to my grief on that because there's a lot a lot and i pointed out the error of the van or decision which i just don't have to my client would then have had to have thought that he could somehow not sure it's because he could cure it there's no conspiracy he's doing the right things but cover it up by making his own citizens arrest the evidence is undisputed  whether or not he can perform a citizen's arrest moreover with regard to a citizen's arrest standard is not probable cause it's really good faith that my client had a reasonable good faith belief that he one two thousand with subsection l of penal code six o two and more over i don't think my client can be charged with understanding that there would be that kind of technical exception to this law there was abuse of the shower that if he believed the best play it was going to be using the shower he was telling the plaintiff oh that's for tenants only you can't do that so this use of the shower exceeded the scope of her mission the question may have given the course and in fact was not allowed to get so i think from the point of view of whether or not my client had a reasonable good faith belief that by returning to the property after being told he could not do that by the police department by the glendale police department and having after cohen come up and specifically ask after colton has taken a plan to put him in handcuffs put him in the back of a police car told the place that he's going to jail at that point i don't think there can be any question but in fact mr against mine he believes he was doing the right thing and there's no evidence to dispute that he police use doing the right thing and i think from an objective standpoint it's very understandable that he would have that belief under those circumstances belief torts in essence go hand in hand with the matter of whether or not my client's citizen's arrest was valid and again i think it has absolutely nothing to dispute that it was with regard to i think that's all we've got here moreover the damage suffered must be so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure this absolutely no evidence here that anything other than the allegedly false or citizen reversed then everything gets resurrected for that reason the bankruptcy issues not before this court nor is there good faith that you i would submit that the intentional infliction of emotional claim against and was not headed back to the to the apartment at all rather upon making the statements that he was snatched by the officer that appears at the excerpts of record at six thirty nine paragraphs twenty two twenty four eclipse a record six thirty in my view sufficient evidence of the conspiracy what i mean by that is that if you take the version of the version of the play and play it against the contrast to the collective version of the defense there is a mutuality of understanding that agreement even down to the it's not supported by probable cause and then he goes and gets from being to make it look we're being goes along with the program and says yes i arrest you for trespassing now if you take ravines version of the facts where is the trust i mean whether it's a hundred eighty three that if the evidence shows the police officers mizzle misled the prosecution with health facts from the prosecution and in other words provided the the the facts upon which the prosecution right relied they are they are virtually in the shoes of the prosecutor and why would that be different if that happens to be a pretty question i did i daresay it doesn't have to be different because now we're using collateral i'm trying to use collateral stoppel to prevent them from really getting the pretty between it police officer or someone apart from the prosecution and to the extent that there are some important decisions for this court to make i think that's something that if the time has come for  rights came things clean now there were three parts of it and the only part that really applied to him was the fifty two point one i'm not arguing because that that wasn't really part of the case what i am arguing and what is before the court here is that