probation company wrongfully threatening indigent probationers jail in order to squeeze money and profit in violation of both state and federal law the district court below granted summary judgment to leaders and immaterial and there is testimony from our canes that they effectively view these individuals as their probation officer similar to if a probation officer said i'll send you to jail if you don't give me money now even if you know you're going to go before a judge that perhaps is wrong in fact in united states you lobos a two thousand and fourteen decision in this court the facts are almost perfectly on point mr via lobos threatened with misuse of the grill process threatened false testimony if the individual didn't pay money this court held that the method was wrong because it was threatening misuse of the criminal process so just because there's a judge in the way that doesn't necessarily make its not wrong for the court could imagine a police officer grabbing someone and saying hey if you don't give me a one thousand bucks i'll have you arrested well that individual might still know that a judge would have to determine probable indigence state statutes dictate a course of action that must be followed under california penal code one thousand two hundred and eight point two age if someone is unable to pay probation fees the probation entity in this case  say must refer the matter to a neutral judge to determine ability to pay so we don't have to i'm sorry yes that's right or if you're on it were to your question where you say if in fact our clients owed money it's really not a fact of whether they owed money once they claimed indigence which both of our clients said repeatedly they couldn't afford so the amount that was owed should have been referred to a new judge it never was l c a simply said pay us are going to jail you know when did they say specifically pay us or you go to jail so according to for example record page one hundred and twelve mr wilson says that he raised his indigency every time he talked to her or being his case manager and she responded she told me if i didn't make a payment i was going to go to jail those were her exact words so in other words you have mr wilson saying i can't pay this i can't afford and a case manager saying then you're going to go to jail  that's the threat that's wrongful the amount is wrongful because under california law once someone claims indigence they have a right to go before a state judge a neutral arbiter who determines ability in mt is in dispute even if the amount was not disputed even if was that a proper action on behalf of no that's one of the matter is there are salivating in our briefing and it was completely improper mainly because he did not allow we would see the man for a st amended complaint the i meant to dismiss two and keep two we moved to amend to beef up the allegations based on discovery we had received and the judge did not allow a st amended complaint for mr edwards and mr brewer brooks even though discovery had already been taken  bases in the a many complaint itself we read line the new allegations including quotes from mr ebbers or mr brooks and we said in the motion if we are given leave of course we will attach all the necessary exhibits but they were that they would have been exactly the same exhibit as rich as previously read reference in other court filings so they would basically say the same thing and the other to follow that and threatened with jail when they said they can say exactly it seemed like judge also was concerned about magic words of threatened with jail which in  stores and now they said exactly the same thing as the other two bags then if the court is right about summary judgment then how is that it change anything exactly i think that's why i'd like to comment on the summ were forcing and scaring them from elsie's own statement of facts on page fifteen they say quote the participants daily monitoring fees are reduced adjusted based on income but case manager of the pereira says that he are one  pot to reduce and instead i was told to keep pushing for the full pain and terminate people from the program if they didn't pay case manager lisa amber says any are for thirty if l c thought he could get more money arbitrarily out of a particular client they would have had additional fees accordingly we were never trained to consider ability to pay when setting those fees and there is never any consideration of ability these are employees of l c a case and interests who are giving testimony directly contrary at both the means the method and the ends the amount demanded we have testimony to both the method and the amounts or wrongful in this case that's information a jury should decide there's a dispute of fact over w coleman please good morning may please the court file and the motion to dismiss ruling and the summary judgment ruling were proper  edwards and brooks so many declarations to the complaint and in those declarations under penalty of perjury there's no mention of them being threatened i like jackson and wilson allegations so all that goes to the predicate act of extortion why didn't they claim throughout this whole complaint that they were injured by the way the rico enterprise functions that's how i understood the complaint so they have the same cause of action as the other two bellows or that the rico enterprise was running the way that caused them to have  mean that they weren't a party that caused the enterprise the other parties the been the cause the enterprise to collapse means one thing to dismiss the case because there's no more rico enterprise going but to dismiss t counsel in arguing that the summary judgment was improperly granted relies on many facts that were jews during the class action process in which and since the action was denied in looking at the summary judgment ruling which would render any decision on the motion to dismiss as harmless error we  hard from the repo enterprise i did not read the pin in that way that i read it that's how i read it in totality goes through standing and then it talks about the threats and different things so other parent council argued that this case is on all fours with us vs villa lobos that case is very different because in that case the rabbi of the center paid people who immigrated as if they had jobs and then they were expected to repay the money to him so it was a fraudulent work in this case people choose to go on electronic monitoring instead of being incarcerated it is a privilege for them to beyond let's try monitoring and instead of being in jail they choose that they signed agreement to pay the fees for the electronic monitoring the two dollars planets that were left as a summary judgment age both had alcohol monitoring and g p s monitoring devices on them and both of them knew if they didn't pay those fees that they would be would be reported to the court the condition of payment is one of the conditions of probation ally dring similar could result in a report to the corps at which point the court is herman if they really man the person had custody they adjust the payment schedule all of the conditions of probation  and the knowledge that that was a process of steps that they would go through if if this case is overturned a judge also decision on summary judgment were saying the customers i guess were saying hey we're going to jail we can't pay and then they're threatened with jail the fact that they might owe some money or but the question is if the person you know the person is they will go to jail and are they saying we control the system we are going to make sure you go to jail we payment neither one of them were paying the maximum payment so to the company and this case l c a but there are other companies out there that they had alternatives to celebrex they signed an agreement that they're going to pay the fees and th and they're told in court that that's one dollar of the conditions of being on the program is that they have to be the monitoring as the same as it as not associated with gangs or the curfew other conditions what have you if we hold th similar to like a credit card and agreeing to pay the fees and the interest and then being called by bill collectors they have to be able to try to collect in some way without the collectors can certainly say you're going to be reported to credit agencies you're going to have these consequences occur it's similar in that respect 's case managers however so well i mean if the employees are describing that this enterprise used press to course parolees to pay higher he functions this way and these people are saying they were trying to squeeze out of us more money than we can pay by threatening series hearing judge also noted that the people who presented testimony of that type were disgruntled employees or our employees planets or the polish council found people that had been fired from  at all had the fees reduced so there was a very much in the summary judgment order are you telling me that all of the judge's reasoning is really in connection with the lack because we start with the motion to dismiss and then as the patients stage the court held an event you're hearing any to all the plans counsel put on your best evidence that there is a pattern and practice of these threats  program because of an inability to pay all or a portion of the program supervision fees payment is completely unique as a condition of probation if you cannot afford to pay you are not in violation it is simply not a violation of  been made wrongful under either the hobbs or california law just imagine if child protective services was visiting a home and that child protective services agency said to a parent give me a one thousand rahman have your kids taken away well that parent may very well know that a report has to be written a judge has to be heard here the evidence and maybe the kids will be taken away but that threat would still be wrongful because it is threatening a wrongful use of the digital process the testimony in this case is literally quote painting or go to jail that's according to mr wilson or no mr jackson if you don't pay you go to jail that's the thread this is a question of fact for the jury threats being many case managers saying this was our standard operating procedure it came directly from this testimony is of course relevant under rico because rico requires us to show a pattern of illegal activity in this case threats of jail