essentially held that the parties participation in a settlement which results in that party's dismissal will automatically bar that claim to from pursuing a malicious prosecution claim and for closing any examination of the reasons for that dismissal that's an incorrect statement of california law the california courts have held that under some circumstances even where a party technically participates in the settlement and let's say some parties pay some money but other parties do not and under some circumstances that dismissed party will not be barred from pursuing a malicious prosecution  in and of itself i'm sorry dismissal for in the interest of justice will not bar a malicious prosecution claim the issue of abel determination though it appears that most of the courts have that ha guidance that was handed down by a while body but more specifically looking at well what happens if a party technically participates in the settlement and what the courts have said including the california courts but also other courts is that there are two that you want to look at first was that dismiss reason this is not a guarantee the reason the district court was the reason that the this quote unquote guarantee was essentially meaningless is because number one with the time that th dismissal was made these cashiers checks were already made out they were there act the court and if you look at the record it had already been confirmed that they had already been confirmed that they were legitimate and  fund raising companies but he was not an owner or director that they loaned the money to jack russell our vice in the company international plastics because that company was providing plastic bags there is no evidence in the record that but there had no money well jack rust in our bias had their own attorneys and they did have they had money and they were the ones who were pleading guilty and required to pay the and there was no requirement as part of the settlement mr jackson ghani pay anything so what we're looking at is what were the terms of this dismissed all and what what were the reasons that mr jackson donny deposition and that is that's on the record in docket number one zero six page nineteen so the prosecutor had to determine they asked the question then he is not only was the money already paid at the time of the because number one as i mentioned and on page seven of the transcript it had been confirmed that the cashier's check checks were good and they were it was not stock but assuming there was some condition this condition was this was ancillary to the settlement the settlement was that these other defendants pled guilty and that they were required to pay the money the government had decided because it lacked evidence they were going to dismiss and so the question your honor is what w unquote contingency was that if the checks theoretically didn't clear which they couldn't because it was a cashier's check but if they theoretically didn't clear then the government would have the right to reinstate the charges and the reason that's meaningless disparate two reasons number one is we argued in the briefs whether or not they paid them or not the government was was entitled to refile the charges either way even if even if they were not even if they paid it was paid the government still could have refile the charges but more importantly the question is what would have happened if if they had been paid ok let's say i'm sorry i'm so the question is what would have happened if they had not been paid let's say that the checks theoretically had not cleared the government had already decided as the prosecutor testified they didn't have enough evidence against mr jackson connie the government had already essentially of the end in the case the government not only did they not requir now owns the company thank you said question i those the statements that you made to the reporter yes answer yes question and is that an accurate statement that you thought that mr jackson donnie was the owner of the company but that he distanced himself so much that all that that they didn't have what they did was the two defendants who pled guilty pled guilty to treating the materials to adding cereals to them to make them come within the hazardous waste violations it prove what we can prove that he was the owner of the company i think my point and that he was asked he was asked by the reporter and by me at the deposition why were the why were the charges against him think respectfully that that's clear that the prosecutors are saying we can prove whatever it was which was an essential element but not only was he not required to pay any thanks but importantly he was not required to do anything with these materials the whole case was about these eighty grams of materials that were sitting there on the dock and not only did they say we don't have enough evidence to prove he's related to this company that only did they say we're not going to require  deputy city attorney of the city of long beach he was not the prosecutor who took the police with the judge took the plea that mr as one was also cited as mr collette a deputy district attorney and the court transcript will reflect that mr cole either was the one who took that very clearly stated conditional plea and it was stated any number of times throughout that transcript it was a conditional plea as part of the global settlement global settlement with from the judge used global settlement was the action arises out of a criminal investigation and prosecution for shipment of california hazardous waste to a bogus buyer in india the possibility of why we're applying california law i suggest an additional reason to my learned counsel to suggest co counsel suggested was we also want to look to the effect of that particular judgment as far as we're going to apply the california negotiated doesn't need to necessarily be a contract is a valid if it prevents a favorable showing of a favorable determination and there's a case quality that is heard too and relied upon that says we don't go behind the judgment itself to look at extra extra judicial adams matters to decide whether in fact this was in fact a settlement and  subjective value of the consideration given by and this is one of the parties as part of the settlement agreement to the city and its co defendants including via its in the tiriel to any consideration whether via can show terminations of the lawsuit in his favor says the court turns to the district attorney says tell us the terms of the settlement and agreement he lays out the terms and the first two please and the fact that they're going to be paying money and the court then turns and who's go settlement says that these particular fines will be paid i mean the not the fines but the restitution of investigative costs will be paid and mr worksman presents the checks to the court there is the record testimony was that the money did come from the fund raising company's stock number one o two page forty six of the projecting on these depositions question the money that was used by international plastics to pay the are various forms the checks that had to be paid at the time they entered their no contest plea where did that money come from answer it came from a fundraising company question what fundraising company is that answer it was a fundraising company in illinois called veterans assistance between international classics wayward trash bags as an incentive for our parents yes they say you donate twenty five bucks you get a box of trash backs and so that fundraising company to raise the money got bought inexpensive fundraising companies oh were were old money in a sense or were continuing to do business with with our advice but the money he manufacturing them and so they were getting they were getting these bags cheaply from art by so as a favor to him to get him off the hook they loaned him the money so that he could get off the hook criminally violence the fundraising companies veterans assistance the checks were paid from an account from veterans assistance corporation those were the base of the charities you know the v f w gets full complete accounting of every  action that the fundraising company takes they have full complete access to the records they're dying to get this service because it's very hard to raise money for veterans because people only want to give small amounts of money it's a very labor intensive especially questions whether they were