honor the state of washington that we've attempted to point out has legislatively mandated that a certain group of people who are public servants in this state should be protected from lawsuits that are maliciously prosecuted against in the course of their profession that crossed cute in a civil litigation may file a counterclaim for their own individual actions for malicious prosecution with the legislature specifically making the finding that the be malicious prosecution to assert a claim against the police chief that for failing to supervise very well because first of all you need to have some evidence that the chief of police sensibly said there's just nothing here other than throwing up everything against the wall which the judge said rather terse language and hoping that the court will see that somehow there's a question of fact the chief vastly violated the constitution but there was no evidence complaint in the allegations he made was saying that she fairly engaged in a conspiracy with detector friends and others to specifically deprive him of the civil rights which is completely unfounded and false he had no factual basis at all to decision came out and said there is no factual them school forward against cheap actually at that point it's for malicious prosecution to continue the litigation and mr mr dog was put on notice by the public's gothika decision especially when  has the same attorney representing him that there is no factual basis to sue the chief of the within a few weeks of harmony and at that point there was no problem or cause him to continue that asking for future of damages asking for a significant monetary gain submitting a claim against a chief in for millions of dollars in personal monetary gain then that is at least at a minimum a question of fact for most of the prosecution now the other claim i want to because friend washington you only have a negligent investigation claim that if you're part of a protected class you are a parent guardian of some of the child who was sexually abused richard all of those victims of sexual abuse in this case were not his dismiss that case forcing she very likely go all the way through the summary judgment process and i'd like the court to focus in on that particular cause of action for our requests that the court respectfully reversed the district court to the abused his discretion and not imposing some rtly after that he was there is for four months evaluations demonstrate that his supervisors characterized him as a ticking time bomb waiting to go on subsequent to that he began to investigate some of the earlier cases including the green case which your honour's will be hearing about next and used many of these of the use of an coercive techniques against the green children there at the very same time of the media began to become involved in the case and techniques that he was using in addition to that there were at a minimum of four citizen complaints that were filed before the high doggle case against mr present only three of which were actually investigated by the police department investigation techniques have been used against them should have also placed she fads and i noticed that mr president not at that point a ticking time bomb waiting to go off but in fact was a time bomb that had gone in addition to that and suddenly she's making accusations against mr hood of your honor there is a time of evidence that indicate that there is a clear need for mr badly to take immediate action in this particular case individuals the only time that she passed never took action with respect to the obvious conflict of interest and as soon as donna and melinda everett were done testifying which is part of this record  they were moved from detective residence home and shipped off to group homes never to see their siblings and teles turned eighteen so the question is do we have probable cause to bring a claim against chief badgley i think it's laughable laughable to say that we don't have probable cause to bring claim council and mr hood off on notice there was no evidentiary support for plaintiff's allegation that badgley somehow personally participated in the alleged constitutional harm for which horace perpetrated upon the place there was no evidence for support for plaintiffs allegation that something vastly did or did not do cause the alleged constitutional harm suffered by the plane and there was no evidence that badly was deliberately indifferent to feel less constitutional conduct by well if my argument is that if the evidence was the same and when we are attempting to reverse judge wally that that because there wasn't any evidence it's at least a fact question for a trier of fact whether or not that was malicious or whether a lack there's just nothing to it she's fifty two she's badly for negligent investigation when there is absolutely no cause of action to do so he's put on notice that you don't have a cause of action for next investigation from his nose at the system and said i'm going to go forward i'm going to sue making that law enforcement official who's devoted screw to protecting the public to defend against a lawsuit that's malicious for there's no factual evidence there's no support