a permit for a roofer here no one safety was at risk so what was the hurry to service stop work order and then have them arrested the tannhauser procedure for late filing fee which i don't mean paid but was still arrested it is clear three the superior court wrongly assumed that the appellate court found probable cause and for shelter cannot route selective prosecution argument in the superior court decision itself already stopped by the district court manifest injustice would result by letting stand any superior court decision that not only failed to defer to an earlier district court decision finding selective and class of one prosecution but somehow reached an opposite conclusion using identical law not prosecutable statutes twenty nine to fifty four day and twenty nine hundred sixty three were used uniquely against edelman over a few square feet of roof to enforce a building code named non discretionary by both judged by treat unfair for many hundreds of people in when i'm alone to do no less than edelman but incur no consequence beyond paying a small late fee edelman has pled facts sufficient to support false arrest malicious prosecution due process deprivation a deprivation of liberty claims edelman needed no more the summary judgment you facts an inference is in favor shalt resident edelman whether edelman filed an application of sorts qualifies as a repeat offender of unauthorized roofing or materially differs from competitors understood at twenty nine to sixty three was just another legislative mandate to the department of public safety for building code adoption and most gentleman would have paid a late fee and the parties would have gone their separate ways instead  his appeal by the end of that afternoon on june twenty fifth he was working with part of the time and he was essentially approached you're talking about you nine hundred ninety eight three days before that on monday the assistant building official daniel costello had stopped by and smoked adelman and looked at the roof is only five point seven percent of the roof this is a two hundred year old unoccupied home and the system building officials had told ellen that he didn't need a building permit and other men are also to avoid another confrontation with shelties specifically done his research it is there it is an open question as to whether you're repairing five percent of the roof on a single family residence which is not subject to the book it's not a commercial residence it's an open question as to whether you need a building permit and many of the building officials in the surrounding towns have said you're entitle to do ordinary repair maintenance less than twenty five percent of your roof hundred square feet so edelman it done his research three days before a building existed building official that said you're all right and so it all men want to have and was working on five point seven percent of his y of this two hundred year old house and he immediately be faxed his first appeal by four o'clock that afternoon he was he spoke to loud the state building inspector that following morning which was friday by eight thirty am he was at the town hall applying for the building permit and on the building permit there's a section for comments and it said paying the late filing fee abates any enforcement action so and by monday the twenty six shelters granted that building permit what is absolutely outrageous about this case is that while the ink was still wet on that stop work order adult scholtz was filling out an arrest warrant application that is absolutely on call for and wince when adelman when he approved billing order on monday he didn't then inform the prosecutor that there is no reason  you continue with with with the prosecution first of all there's no reason for the prosecution the only thing that stop work order said was obtain required for he didn't even give him twenty four hours it's not the law that you can be arrested for for hitting sing for pampering one nail what the code has to stanzas or supersede you're out you're given notice you're told about the violation you're given an opportunity to abate that violation and everyone agrees lao the building code experts that once you and even shalt once you abate that violation by paying that might filing fee there's there's no grounds for prosecution to have ply for a rest mark on a lie of continued work the only way you can rest on one is for continued work after the after you're given notice and it was an absolute lie that he would know that there was continued work that was the basis for the arrest which somehow morphed into a twenty nine to sixty three which is not part of the building code and that's not the ground for an arrest so this case should never have even gotten into the courts it have been it should have remained in the agency should have resolved this dispute nearly a generation ago an agency would have understood that twenty nine hundred sixty three is just another legislative mandate for what the building adopt instead and most at all they want to pay the late fee in the parties would have gone their separate ways instead the world at home and his family has been turned topsy turvy by premeditated structure out subterfuge and lies on their behalf i respectfully implore this court to make things right sought the input of the local housing prosecutor and upon his recommendation applied for an arrest warrant affidavit the prosecutor took that reviewed it how it submitted to a local judge for approval mr adelman was arrested on july second one thousand nine hundred eight and following that was submitted for prosecution by the local housing prosecutor the the judge allowed the matter to go to a  jury issued a charge relating to the particular claims that mr adelman was being tried upon and the matter was appealed to the connecticut appellate court where the appellate court reversed on a procedural technicality but nonetheless affirm the frito were judge meyer reached out that decision given the fact that they found alternative grounds i think that is the simplest way to to approach this case as given given the appellate court's determination that guilty of a failure to cont for failure to obtain a permit to construct or alter under the building code and that was appealed and due to the decision of the judge fully to not pull the jury it was reversed that's  after he had already issued a permit that true that with that part of the proof in front of the jury you know my wrong about that i mean yeah if i can if i can just clarify and i think this goes to your honor's question having performed work prior to taking a permit for violating stop work the charges for that he was arrested on were both however the prosecutor at the time of trial elected to withdraw the claim irrelevant as to whether or not there was probable cause for continuing work in violation the issue is in this case and has always been the issue is mr adams position as to how to apply the building code to his property and i believe that the the fact that the prosecutor elected to proceed with this course of action that the judge elected to proceed with this course of action and the appellate court's determination that that course of action was valid goes the position that mr evans interpretation is incorrect with you know your honor and our position has been that that is and always has been a red herring there the disputes that they identify are hearsay statements from third party building officials as to whether or not  building permit was required and here the criminal trial testimony of christopher allow the state building inspector at the time provides that a building permit was required that is his testimony before the trial court on this particular are sufficient record for this court to examine those issues and the event we were to agree that the district court decision was improper what was raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings was that from the for the position of the defendant that there was probable cause supporting their arrest because he was tried on a claim for which mr adelman sufficiently alleges in his own complaint that he worked in violation of or rather worked without a permit mr elements contentions in the appeal or that the overarching theory of the case that he can be can't be tried under twenty nine days to fifty four a or twenty nine to sixty three the connecticut general statutes that wasn't raised his opposition brief wasn't addressed by judge scottrade only the motion for judgment on the pleadings decision so i would submit that those claims were not adequately briefed in the underlying issues the issue about collateral estoppel that was raised by by attorney roberts whether or not this court examines it under a cloud or all stop will doctrine or simply analyzes the actual facts that judge boland relied on on two separate occasions in the claims that mr adelman brought in state court against the state building inspector the fact remains yes that judge boland has as determined as a matter of law the probable cause existed for the prosecution mr  adelman under the theories that the state advanced at the time and as such this court can determine that probable cause existed and therefore there were no constitutional violations supporting claims of false arrest licious prosecution  similarly the court's analysis judge bones analysis of the stop work order of the due process claims and equal protection claims i think can be either adopted based on the collateral stop a basis mr adelman has not advanced any basis for a sort of dual track proceeding where he would be entitled to an administrative determination of whether or not the permit was needed prior to the court's determination were prior to submission of the claim to to a jury on a criminal claim and i would submit your honour's as to the larger equal protection claims i think that either under the pleading requirements on a motion for judgment on the pleadings when the evidence submitted to judge meyer on the motion for summary judgment he is wholly failed to identify any similarly situated individual and has not overcome the legitimate government all objective of securing compliance somebody that has on multiple occasions failed to obtain a permit and then sought to counter the decision of the local building official won his liberties in question and be won in front of a district court judge that could decide the man well i think in late to be raising it now is not i think in the criminal court the only issue the only thing that you can be arrested for  for continued work without right if it's not a crime you simply move to dismiss that didn't happen you know i think that the trial trial counsel think the thought that the prosecutor the it and everybody did known what the that there was a statute from which is liberty could be taken and why would we then substitute a technicality when indeed everybody was operating on a  complaint but you can't do it after the fact and then claim somehow that's the basis for a suit and for in federal court for violation someone's civil rights does not seem  walked into court you know and if the government has not cited the statute that's not a crime i'm moving to dismiss my clients live or use it's take mr obama's liberty was at stake and the motion to to to rectify that situation should have been made there notice of a stop work order and you continue working without the stop work order and they wouldn't have known what that testimony at trial was that they saw him there were conflicting testimony scholtz said that he thought adelman continued because a page had because of information from page page said i didn't see him up i didn't see him working i have no idea what he was doing up there so there are these lines at trial that under undercut the arrest  also in the common sense that no reasonable person could believe it was objective lee reasonable to criminally prosecute one man for repairing the shingles of his home without a permit while simply accepting surcharge famous for his neighbors from the same building code