this case and the district court conclusion that probable cause was present to continue the prosecution and the issue of waiver which seems to be the most which really is the threshold issue in this case the i have been arrested repeatedly by this defendant i have taken every case to trial this case was the only one that i did not take to trial and i would have taken this went to trial except on the eve of trial when discovery was being given to me by the prosecution and actually just around that time they offered to dismiss the case because they couldn't get the united states witness to come to court and testify that is alibris a key witness and hamels arrest warrant and al a birdie statements are they are not under oath i had never had the opportunity to cross examine alibris i've never even had the opportunity to post them because in criminal court there are no depositions for misdemeanors so on the issue of waiver it was really the district court concluded that i knew or i must have known about mrs kingsb statements to the police but i don't understand how i would have and the reason for that is basically there were no depositions conducted him alone was the movement he was a summary judgment move and he was the one who needed to to establish responsibility for it and admitted that he didn't contact pepsi because he didn't want to get mr couey into trouble and and then he turns around at this at this stage when he's being sued and says that the waiver prevents the element of favorable terminations under malicious prosecution so you can't say that a waiver that withholding the evidence wasn't a brady violation because it has essentially impacted guilt and that's what he's saying i can't demonstrate favorable terminations even though i dispute that and that's not on appeal kingsbury's statement should have been to quote disclose hamel should not have been investigating these matters he was personally invested he was prejudiced he was motivated by whatever personal relationship he had with who any which they both admitted to and he took control of the narrative he interfered with my ability to obtain evidence from witnesses as demonstrated by the two e mails that are in my appendix the one from two thousand and thirteen on page thirteen of the appendix and the e mail that i've asked this court to accept as supplemental evidence as relevant to the issues presented by the defendant a one hundred and twenty three this is whether her stipulation to a probable cause in october of two thousand and thirteen operates to preclude her from taking a contrary position in this and subsequent civil litigation that i don't sit in the shoes of the state's attorney during this time however the reality is there's a stipulation of probable cause in an effort to obtain a dismissal of criminal charges and an affirmative indication of innocence as was the condition of the missile well i think if you look at plane exchange transcript that was included in the appendix which is a fifty five dollars is the last page of the transcript and there you can you can see that the state was ready to enter an intern ali with respect to the shouldn't be able to take a position in one judicial proceeding and then take a different position in another traditional proceeding but that's usually because they've tried to game the system so to speak by saying something in one proceeding that was advantages to them so we get to the proceeding in which her charges are dismissed saying that there was probable cause did not strengthen the argument for dismissing the charges it was really a price that was exactly to i think almost avoid her ever suing someone but it's not the same situation it's not like she was she was defending herself in the state court proceeding and as the defense said they had probable cause i mean he would take the opposite position so i'm just trying to figure out what the theory is of making her say something favorable to the prosecution rather than the defense as the price for dismissing the charges against her  those circumstances because of course she just couldn't show her scuffle cannot be applied when the totality of circumstances suggests that it doesn't really it really is an app in the situation i'm trying to figure out how it not obtaining tactical advantage in the criminal proceeding however there was a benefit to the to the stipulation strike i mean that's what you're saying is the benefit correct but the benefit is right so that's a benefit and then as i'm sure the court knows another piece of the judicial stop will don't turn into somebody should why should they get the benefit of the concession she made in the state to get the charges dismissed against her i mean there may be abscissa to these questions that are just not obvious to me contention is that there was evidence that came up post arrest that she didn't know now we contend that she didn't know about i understand that and so i believe lawyers defense criminal counsel have gone and stipulated probable cause and then on the back end their criminal defendant now a civil rights plaintiff has brought a case and the from claiming that there is no probable cause for her prosecution and that the court deems that an incorrect ruling we would ask that you  counsel is waived and he hasn't played the fact that he needed to plead that he gave all the evidence to the prosecutor or the judge and let them make their own decision he interfered with their discretion by not giving him all of the information he just would hold for me he was held from you and or others like you and he also cited a special defense that he acted in good faith and i think that there's enough evidence in the record that him most prejudiced he did not act in good faith these e mails are demonstrative that you don't i've never heard of a police officer controlling the narrative to this extent and to withhold evidence from me and withhold evidence from the prosecution you had to have known that if you had disclosed it it would have gone the way you wanted it to go and kevin hamill had a go here i wish i had not been so naive but as just a paralegal i worked in the industry but not like this we just believe that everything runs the weight should we think that everybody is honest and the truth comes out in court and this is general eye opener for me kevin hamill pledge that i was negligent i wasn't negligent i did everything i could to get everything i could for myself i was i know that  isn't in the record because represented by rough crozier rough closure was being criminally charged in person rate and all kinds of problems there i was pro se i did my best i thought it was fair that on the face of the war even though it was arguable even though i recognize that the hearsay evidence was inadmissible that a reasonable person would certainly think that something wrong happened here but there was never any evidence that i made any call in july i always admitted to making my calls i always admitted to i was upset over these