yeah so we're going to hear from mr wil i would like to separate out your honors a couple of the issues first there are two classes of defendants in this case and i think a lot of times in the district court's opinion and even in some of the briefing they get sort of combined  treated as one set of defendants we have in this case a set of prosecutors we have a set of investigators and the crux of my claim on behalf of mr katz craic is that the investigators didn't simply investigate and the prosecutors didn't simply prosecute what they did in this case it was acted outside the scope of their employment and both respects now to a certain standpoint i am hampered in this case because this case was dismissed on a twelve b six motion we didn't get the opportunity to conduct discovery and in this matter and we didn't get a chance to look at e mails we didn't get a chance to take depositions we didn't get a chance to actually request the volumes in the reams of documents or that are in this case and what i would say at the outset is that there is a good portion to this case in that the right people were i ask you that there's no doubt that robert millner should have been prosecuted and found guilty in this case and there's no doubt that marc singer should have been prosecuted and found guilty and you'll see records in there that mr becker actually instead of being prosecuted decided to turn state's evidence and actually give  testimony in this case the problem that we have and this is sort of the confluence of all of the claims in this case that i put forth and in my complaint and how they've been interpreted is that i'm taking the fact that my client prosecuted and found guilty and applying that to this case to say that the prosecution itself the actual prosecution that was the job of the prosecutors based on the job of the investigators is somehow violent of of the law and that's not what we're saying we have to lay that out factually in this case in order to say here's how the process started here's what happened during the process and during the course of that process there were certain defects and there were certain deficiencies that in and of itself may explain the motivation and i agree that the motivation itself isn't what gives light to my claim but what then ends up happening as i pointed out that at least from  complaint what i have here is i've got a heavy allegations and i have evidence that we've already directed the district court to and i presented here that this wasn't done for the purpose of prosecuting my client instead the investigation occurred with the assistance of the prosecutor for other self serving reasons now it was envelop into prosecutions that were for a right purpose and were for prosecutorial purpose but didn't happen in this case with regard to my client sherry katz crank what were any improper purposes i'm sorry to what were the improper purposes it was it was for self self promotion self motivation in this case further in careers that were outside the scope of employment here you could see that all of the defendants in this case in one form or another treated my client in particular as a public relations tool putting out information regarding her which was based on in essence nothing other than the fact that she was involved as a legal counsel for the wrongdoers in this case and promoting that she was charged as an aider and abettor she was that's right right and th these investigate this just start with the investigators they actually went and took my clients business clients so my clients clients and actually whitney talked to them and said you should be doing business with that and with with her you shouldn't be doing business with her business because she's being investigated and being charged for this that's not the proper purpose of state investigators of county investigators to actually do that and go for it now i think i'm entitled to develop the record on this and to actually look at the e mails and to look behind it i certainly think it creates a prime aphasia case that cuts across a twelve the six motion and should give me the opportunity to look at this what you do have to clean up plausible case of improper purpose and i don't see factual allegations suggesting a plausible case of improper process well i think i understand that but i think we have a lot of property case here where this was not done for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting my client but for simply adding on to two or three other prosecutions which were actually good and i don't think you can ignore the fact that at every stage during the course of these criminal prosecution because they get more credit for prosecuting three people instead of two or why they said that i mean that's what i that's what the secretary of state as well as the prosecutor did in this case they want to forward and they added my client into this and they made statements to the press talking about and saying how this was as bad as somebody going into going into a store with a gun and robbing from from that store so yes i do think that's the case and this comes directly from the improper purpose i think it's more than then i think when you when you base it on the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever against my client mean nothing other than the fact that she shows up in some e mails i think that it is an improper purpose because they're not prosecuting her for for a crime or for the right reasons in this case and what they're doing is simply using my client as a tool to enhance their own agendas and their own reputations not because an actual crime was committed you can't separate that our actual crimes were committed the question is whether there's sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was an aider and abettor that jerry said now that it right i can't i'm not denying that my client went to so there's probable cause the crimes were committed in the question is why she an aider and abettor the jury rejected that but i'm still not hearing a plausible activities in relation to the press so you alleged defendant's assistant because people are statements in the press and websites and blogs containing information regarding cats crimes alleged criminal activity which they knew was false that's not your strongest position i think so in fact even the government says that the prosecutor statements to the press may be county and investigator trace and her separately represented this morning by a man to be ungenerous regarding the question of discovery the state did file a motion to stay discovery after filing its motion to dismiss there was never any opposition from the plaintiff to that motion the motion itself stated that counsel for the state reached out to miss katz crank's counsel to see if she objected and never got a response so the district court noting that the motion to stay discovery was unopposed granted the motion there's no argument on appeal that that grant of a stay was in a piece of discretion regarding the press releases that the prosecutor might have made even if there is no immunity as to have any press release the plaintiff still has not shown a constitutional deprivation outlook that's where i where i don't understand you so the so on pages thirty three thirty two and thirty three of the appellant's brief there are all these and then you make this remarkable statement but to the extent appellant may have fear that the press statements would inflame the public against or a jury found her not guilty mean there was no harm from the statements and therefore no lying constitutional rights but that's not the only concern she had about the press statements she had she was concerned that they ruined her business and you know respond to that you know you need you don't sponsor that at all you just assume also he cared about was that the press statements would would make her more likely to be convicted and that just isn't true well even if as first there's only one press statement that is that we know about in terms of its content the rest of her allegations are simply no other than your brief respond to what is  strongest argument which is which is the the premise activities of the you know pub publicity activities of the of the prosecutors again the if the even if ok she her business suffered from these press releases in what way is her business or the problems with her business a violation of the constitution she's never articulated i playing have if you have government employees who going outside of the scope of their duties ruin someone's business with defamatory press releases you don't think that's  well under under state law no under firm under federal law well if there's a federal if there's a viable federal claim she has not made it while it was in a viable federal claim that nobody wants public officials to do that as far as her case the case that she has brought her her claims the court cannot create claims for her her claims are that the press statements violated her constitutional rights that is what we have to deal with the district court specifically held she has not stated a claim under the fourth amendment or the fourteenth amendment she doesn't challenge that on a human she may have feared the press statements would inflame the pope with it goes well and i will say this morning that acknowledging her concern also with the damage to her business i'll acknowledge that however what claim does she make regarding that allegation as to liability under section one nine hundred eighty three all we can focus on is what she is claiming what is she stating in terms of violation of any federal right and so even if we can imagine that she was harmed in other respects and i'm not going to try to downplay any damage she might have suffered two or three incidents but were we really are limited to what she alleges and then how she has stated her claims with regard to and so with regard to her state of claims she has across the board stated that every defendant acted outside the scope of his or her authority even when given the chance to re her allegations all she does is pile on additional adverts instead of identifying each fandom in saying what each defendant did and explaining how that was outside a defendant's scope of authority sure you know maybe you know   participating in the grand jury and the trial proceedings which is unquestionably within the scope of employment there's no reference to these press releases and her in her complaint  state law claims well ok that the question has to do with press activity it's all right under state law there is even there the courts have acknowledged that informing the press duties of your local officials one i particularly liked was the notion that your chief investigator has an obligation to says called clients of the plaintiffs to tell them to that they shouldn't do business with her if she says that was outside the scope of her employment because it harmed her business however she was doing her job maybe badly maybe overzealously but she hasn't shown that that was outside the scope of her employment it's not as if this defendant went on facebook and said that katz crank is a is a bad person or did something entirely as part of her personal life she never came back and hand crank and says i'm going to get yes you say that the chief investigator ok right that sentences securities investigators and the chief officer are investigating and advising constituents with regard to the state defendant the who the what the businesses were or if they were just you didn't even know what they were but you nevertheless told them not to do business move well we're aware of what the allegations are in the complaint and as far gaiters who have who are prosecuting someone can try to ruin their their business before before the trial how can that be permissible condo the  authority comes and even if i don't has to get it but is that when you talk about qualified immunity you're talking about a federal law correct she has also brought state law claims and those failed in about th that is not the the allegation is not that this investigator wanted to ruin her business she never alleged that what the bare fact that that investigator called clients could easily be that she just wanted to warn people about doing business with someone who is under investigation that may be overzealous but that is still within the scope of authority and it and it is not actionable under section  constitutional claims affirmation and in favor of the county defense is proper for three reasons the first reason being that the plaintiff's complaint fails to allege that mean county maintained a custom policy or practice and finally the remaining claims against detective trait then should be dismissed because he failed she failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to the district court permitted appellant to plead her claims against defendants twice yes it's clear that there is no other well pleaded factual allegations to support them and now claim against marion county with regards to the district court's reference to eleventh amendment immunity to all defendants the appellant appellant is correct that to state in the now claim the decision was the same that the claims against maine county and detective straight then in his official capacity were properly just m then was acting within the course and scope of his employment and therefore he's immune from the intentional infliction of emotional distress to prosecution claims under the indiana tort claims act to be within his scope of his employment the conduct must of the same or general nature of the authorized by the employer and the original complaint all actions allege they were taken within the course and scope of each defendant's employment and the amended complaint the same factual allegations exists with the inclusion of language from the indiana tort claims act to assert personal claims against the defendant saying that they were acting outside of the course and scope there were no additional facts alleged to support that statement just the legal evidence in the plaintiff complaint or allegations that the press statements were made by marion county or by detective tra valuations in the complaint there is no way to possibly determine who the claim specifically is against based on the bare bones conclusory allegations even if this court found that the plaintiff made enough factual allegations to survive and what i think the scope of employment is so when misting just stated earlier that this is what mr traits and did because this was within the scope of his employment and this is what he was supposed to do i can't verify that that's why i need to do discovery on this case and why it was premature to dismiss this claim we've clearly alleged fourth and fourteenth amendment