dignity over that was certainly the case this is a man whose life was destroyed driven from his home always valuable property seized under the watchful eye of the orange county sheriff after consultation with the war county state's attorney raid that took all day without a court order after he demanded to see a court order so without that's the only facts that i'll go over and plus they're relevant to the points i'm going to make but i'm regardless of the disability would have done it in the same way because in the disability mark my whole point and i don't think the district court necessarily shot this down is that the choice of methods mattered you know not all there's many ways to to discriminate against somebody they don't all fall into the same types of discrimination that racial and ethnic and religious discrimination falls into a heaven animists a lot of times  discrimination can occur against families or the disabled that release kind of innocently motivated in this case not a beautiful it's innocently motivated but the fact is that the methods that were chosen were geared towards exploiting mr wilson's handicapped and most despicable way to cause him physical disability under a known method that they have actually observed the previous tuesday they had a dry run at it and then mr johnson came into  the the premises on saturday and intentionally sought and think a jury could find that that we're going to take the take the wind out of mr wilson sales by putting munder this stress that mr johnson a criminal defense attorney by the way we think tailored towards what he learned what mr hanssen had told him about mr wilson what mr reiners had told him about mr wilson based on the tuesday incident and what he observe himself on tuesday that that bad conduct of entering onto his property past the no trespassing sign into mr wilson's house following around threatening him that you would be arrested  again all without a court order all without any real theory that this residence that he was entering wasn't even owned by his client and knowing what the outcome work in that day because somebody called in sick right there in order to any property to be removed well we're not actually we didn't we're not seeking the fair housing damages or or the liability against the county that was really just a claim we're making against cases and then first addressing the conspiracy issue and to tell you that there really is no overt conspiracy here that that was a thread we pulled in our little pleading and then through discovery because of just an incredible string  coincidences the county wanted the property to be cleared the county issued this jumping to bree letter for enormous violation but didn't even give it to the right parties mr johnson uses that count on jumping to the letter as the lynch pin of his will be repeated without a court order and then the very saturday when it happens is worst fears are realized mr johnson is saying i just talked to the state attorney here is his cell phone number and while on the ranges to curse any way again without a court order it without really have to show the state actors this bad motives like the like johnson did you know in order to show this conspiracy don't you have to show that the state knew what was going on was was part of it i don't think so because number one we're not alleging an overt conspiracy but in in all the repression cases so many of them don't ever should talk about a meeting of the minds and don't show that that the parties got together and said gee we don't we're acting a properly here let's go for it it just doesn't happen in the case and the repossession cases that's rarely ever discussed even one of the cases the booker versus city of atlanta they said that in this discrimination a state action can be intentional in this case what we have though is willful blindness it's in his well established law that if you know something might happen and you close your eyes to a possibility of a happening make no investigation it's the same as choosing it and that really is the case here that's the thread pulled about conspiracy didn't pan out we got was something i think even harder to agree a belief when even the repossession committee says don't they say that just to the fact that law enforcement is there that doesn't transform a private act into a public isn't it do all your case i don't think so because what in this case what they did was they were on notice since tuesday tuesday wednesday friday saturday and that isn't what that and that mr wilson feared these people were coming on his property without a court order i'm just going to trust johnson without any investigation what was so hard with show me the order but so and so but that's negligence well i think that's negative well to me it's willful blindness to my client that that when you know that it's going to happen and you willfully close your office and say we will trust mr johnson what area or other area of law does the state get to say i'll rely on this informant for probable cause warrant without investigating our  serve the search warrant how about reading it that's essentially what they did here so i think the willful blindness it's a well established principle that it's the same as choosing the conduct that you're willfully blind to so i don't think it's negligence i don't think they made they made a bad judgment call they weren't careful enough they didn't try at all and i think that is the difference here because coming him to use says there's a requirement for joint action is that the parties share a common honey constitutional goal so just you go that far with these i can well i i can i can't because like i said you know we we can't show that there was a meeting of the minds except that i'm not i confess that i'm not familiar with the facts of the cutting him off the top of my head and so can't compare it except that like the the this was i interested in reading the reproduction cases they never even seem to discuss that so yes there is no conspiracy yes depends on if you think that if the warren county state's attorney can't turn over the authority of state to a private attorney from out of town in the face of this history of having done this dry run rate on tuesday having mr and get the him get the the situation laid out for him and then still not bothering to say have to show you the order forwards and then the normal policy the state's attorney would be there's no order parties go to court to get an or of it then when he got the call i think he had the duty to basically say all right we better we better inquire into this we have the affirmative duty then to say this is exactly what i've what i've talked about the da before with mr goal set at length then with mr wilson that this is a raid without a court order i better check to see that there is one that's exactly what they were or what he feared so it's not like he was  county and as judge williams you pointed out we believe that most walked plaintiffs have in terms of evidence at most a control negligence on part of the state's attorney sure he should have been more careful and he should have exercised more due care in handling the phone call that he  d from the deputy that day but if we look at all the cases that this court has decided under the substantive due process theory of the claim it requires a much more culpable conduct on the part of the public official before the court finds liability the standard is variously described as shocks the conscience or deliberate indifference or recklessness and under the recklessness standard you need to either know all that what you're going to do as a risk of causing harm to the citizen or it should be obvious plainly obvious and here we have two basically two  made to the state's attorney this was on friday of the week and question and it was three days after the private defendants had visited wilson's property they had begun scouting it out they took photographs and on thursday they had already planned that they were going to go to wilson's land on saturday and remove items of property that they believe belonged to them so the decision to go to the property to remove wilson's items have already been taken on thursday on friday and the state's attorney gets a call complaining that they ha undone this the state's attorney says no one can come on your land and remove items of property without a court order as the district court correctly characterized this statement it's a general principle of law now there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the state's attorney communicated anything to the private defendants or their attorney there is no evidence that the private defendants even knew that there was any communication between wilson and the state's attorney so if we look at whether the plaintiff was safe before all grand spoke to him on friday and whether he was unsafe afterwards we find that the record only supports long conclusions which is that wilson already face danger to his property from the private defendant brief and alluded to it this morning that because of what all going told him he unlocked his gate which was usually locked our position is that number one protective measures that he could himself have taken and so it's odd that instead of doubling up on your own protective measures you would somehow construe that statement or told the state's attorney hey based on what you're telling me i'm going to seize my protective measures i'm going to leave my gate unlocked so that on saturday when the state's attorney got the call from the deputy he didn't even know all that w had left his get up let alone that the private defendants had been told by the state's attorney they didn't know either and now as we've seen in the record there the private defendant's attorney johnson justified in his deposition that the absence of a court order didn't really deter him from counseling his own client that he had a right to go there on saturday and remove items of property we have to keep in mind that the private defendant one of them owned one of those pieces of property for eleven railroad street property the three fifty seven property had been deeded by them to mr wilson so as far as their attorney was concerned you're the owner you have a right to be there so that that is the first thing that lane of complains about the state's dirty the so called promise or assurance that he would take care of things when they called and under the exception to the dick cheney rule that they're making this theory they really don't have the evidence to show as this court asks that an affirmative act of the public official increases the danger that hew face it's not enough just to show a causal connection between whatever the state's attorney sad and the injury they don't have that now the second and if they don't have that then our position is that as a public official receiving a phone call who is not even present at the scene of the seizure between two private parties well then that public official doesn't have a duty to start with under to shane so now anything that he did or didn't do that they complain about even if it's negligent he didn't even have a duty to protect them from private defendants designs on their property now another thing to keep in mind about the seizure claim is that the state's attorney  not being there is limited to knowledge off the situation based on whatever he's hearing from the deputy so he doesn't know and one of the last point i want to make before i even to my colleague is that when the deputy called the state's attorney he clearly tells the state's attorney the private defendants are on the property and they have begun removing items so the seizure had already begun and the state's attorney didn't really have a duty and even if he did at most he should have been more careful he certainly wasn't reckless and it wasn't obvious that anything else thank you just a couple brief comments first my opening comments can relate to a few words that my opponent has used in his description of the activities of the defendants he keeps referring to they basically trying to lump my client and state's attorney together with respect to what happened on the twenty second and on the twenty fifth and i think is rendered by my client is mr caruthers yes or no i think the important thing here is my client did not have any knowledge to any concept of the conspiracy or sentence wholly on the activities that took place on the twenty six which was the saturday when hansen and johnson and their crews came out to do the removal and i think what's important here is that this court remember that when we're looking at whether or not there was a willful attempt to conspire engage in these concerted efforts by the private defendants by mr caruthers the officer i think it's important to take a look at what the officer knew at the time mr carruthers had been out to the property in two thousand and eight responding to an open door and when he called the station and said you need to send the owner out who they send out they sent out mr hanson he comes out to the property in two thousand and eight and walks through a deputy critters so at that point deputy chris thinks well here is the the property owner has been called to the property he must be the property owner but it goes beyond that on tuesday the twenty second officer crothers is out at the property he's responding to a call takes place and after me wilson head is incident his seizure was really taken away he's talking to johnson and hanson on the property and says what are you doing here what we're out here we got the cease desist order disjunct water we're going to be removing this junk so we're out here taking pictures of the things that we're going to remove so again we have another incident where deputy critters believes that hansen is rightfully on the property and they were rightful owner of the property but it goes further than that when when mr carruthers when officer critters comes into work on saturday morning again this is supposed to his day off he comes in on saturday and he's told by the police headquarters we're going to get a standby call the owners are going to be doing some removal work we want you to stand by do a peacekeeping job on the premises so he has that knowledge he goes to the premises soon as he gets out of his car after he gets his stand like all soon as he gets out of his car he's approached by johnson who is holding up a stack of papers and sticks them in its face and what mr ghassan says to him is here's here's our court papers my client has a right to be here well ask as my papers with my client did look at these papers and he didn't know what they meant he didn't know the implications of these papers and so he called the space attorney everybody so complicated he had no experience of those your honor he had he'd never seen anything like this before and he didn't know what the implications were and so he called the state says her attorney pursuant to the policies and he said i've got these papers we have people out here they're starting to remove property and they're telling me that they've got a right to be here and i've got these court papers and so there's a discussion that is brought out in the record about the effect of these court papers and when when my client critters hung up that call he testified that he believed that the state's attorney had told him that that that gave the right of hanson and johnson to be on the premises so and going through all of this is to simply say this if the state of mind is important for the concept of what's willful whether there's a willful jointer by my client in the so this conspiracy by the private offense then we have to look at what the state of mind was and was he acting willfully and intentionally or was he negligent at most and everything that my client had in front of him at that time so that hanssen was the owner of that property and his property owner had a right to be there including his attorney johnson who was standing there saying my claim has a right to be her read the papers perhaps he should have but he's already told us clearly i didn't know what they meant and when he came away from that phone conversation with the station attorney it was his impression that the that hansen and johnson and their crew had a right to be there now right or wrong  i think the point is that's what his belief was in that shows there was no there was no intent now the last thing i'd like to point out is my client opposing counsel has talked about other activities at caruthers participated in the reference something that  refers to as a threat and in the brief he implies that my client gave permission for johnson and his crew to take activities commensurate to his on the premises i would point out this remember officer critter's was called to the property in order to be a peace keeper to be a standby officer and basically preserve the peace once it was decided right or wrong whether or not hanson had a right to produce to undertake those activities critter's was performing the job and when someone says i want to stop that forklift i'm going to stop this activity and he says no you're not and you're going to be hafe or even if you assume that they're correct and he says i'm going to arrest you all my client caruthers was doing at that time was in force in the piece as a officer of the peace as an officer who was called as a standby officer so whether or not he nodded johnson whether or not he directed people to johnson is irrelevant because it's after the fact thank you very much thank you timeline three minutes court order and that was secured to be repeated so when he got the call on saturday had he forgotten the conversations in meeting the previous day he certainly knew the risk at that time so that takes it out of protection it's not something that they have that the the defendant doesn't have to basically show that there's nothing he could have done but for what the state's conduct is this if the state create increased or created a danger then that's  facts he did actually seek a court order your honor they actually file a case and he tried to get it to tempers training or on friday but there are no judges in the courthouse he just decided well i'm going to go ahead anyway you know i johnson didn't come here why he know why why here you know