thank you your honor may it please the court at the district court level the the judge there erred when he dismissed to raj state arkansas a civil rights act claims these claims were for the same as the federal case they were free speech and unreasonable search and seizure claims the judge did this where whining on an arkansas statute that gives state employees immunity in acts or omissions except for those that are malicious however the actress statute itself sets the standard that court should look at the federal civil rights act for persuasive authority on how those statutes are applied even in this this is been upheld in the th circuit is as most recently as last summer and  that case that arkansas statutory immunity quote is similar to that provided by the supreme court pursue a federal civil rights claims be quote because harsens use of force did not violate clearly established principles of law which a reasonable person would have would have knowledge d he is immune from suit still quoting accordingly an official is immune from sue if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law which a reasonable person would have knowledge and this is the important part of that opinion and it quotes a case an arkansas case because to demonstrate malice a plaintiff must show a conscious violation of the law and that's how you show malice in arkansas it is by the same standard as these federal cases the qualified immunity cases and these same arguments that the judge relied on were specifically address malicious it is requires that the officer not just not that there is lot out there that the officer ought to be aware of but that the officers actually know who the what they were definition of malice and malicious and it's very it's several pages but it is a very it ended as you know but you demonstrate this by showing clearly established law and the arkansas arkansas malicious immunity statute but this to this court this th circuit appropriately read the case law and it shows that that it's not it's not different the same standard arkansas calls d this statutory immunity qualified immunity and we know this because there is literally no case ever that has been decided where you have an analogous state intense and disposition to do a wrongful act greatly injurious to another intentional doing of the wrongful act implying and evil intent are those all separate ways to get  malice then then clearly establishes that it feels to write it well it does feel different but if you read every single case and you read it carefully for some reason in arkansas we just we outlined it as basically the qualified immunity statute and by say basically i mean it's the exact same thing they they go on for pages about malice and they define it but then they go back and say well this is you know because it was clearly established you know this is met so d it doesn't i know that they add this stuff and they talk about some of it in some of their opinions but when you look at the practical result and when you look at words like because to demonstrate malice everything before that it's not also to demonstrate malice it's not but to demonstrate malice it's because so an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law which a reasonable person would have knowledge because to demonstrate malice a plaintiff must show a conscious violation of law and so you never see in any of these cases where the plaintiff is expected to show that the officer knew something that is never seen it yes i know that but the court keeps saying that there's these things out there it's great the injurious to others and have any attempt to inflict injury or under circumstances that would apply any  is the arkansas courts are just in the business of beresford plus instead that seems to be talking about all these horrible things but then but never mind we actually are applying exactly the same was the apply in federal courts and if so why wouldn't they just say that w language is bound canards you meant was because he has not shown a conscience violation of the law yet but under our can so long you show a conscious violation of the law by showing that every reasonable officer should have known that this was the law and if you look at every case that's how they define it they never arkansas never required you to define has never required you to actually prove that the officer had actual knowledge or that they actually had it's always defined as the conscious lile ation of the law d the piercing the quick same federal qualified immunity standard so another point that i was going to make is that attorney misconduct in this case i believe warrants a new trial the defense attorney and i reached an agreement to not call john settle the city prosecutor who prosecuted this case and that agreement was recorded in the three and a half minute conversation and that agreement was reduced to e mail that could not even be more clear john stoll i'm not calling him as a witness if you're not blaming the city or settle for criminal defense attorney fees on june nd issue two thousand and fifteen arrest of eric and if you listen to that audio it's painfully clear that we have a crystal clear agreement that he agreed to and then on the day of trial spending almost i think spending six different pages of the record and six questions about who was responsible for the criminal defense attorney species mr francis obviously flaunted that agreement and that was injurious to mr throughout rajab because if you look at the actual concrete damages that's roughly eighty six percent of them were more centered around his criminal defense attorney stephen having to go to court potential in evidence that it that it had been agreed would not be admitted at trial and then dropped about a ten foot print out of all these crow all these crimes that the plaintiff is allegedly committed of damages and civil rights is again a subject inquiry that requires evidence of evil motive for trial difference as a model there was no busy evidence presented at a police station and then this in the eights circuit upheld that his attorney should get attorney fees without loss that you know i don't see a need to revisit that it's pretty much the exact same fact pattern  except for our case involves free speech additionally mr france keeps saying that the court found that there was no misconduct but the court never said that and in fact said things the opposite