call the next case which is stacey park's miller versus county of center at all mr ca quick as i was reading the factual recitation in this case i noticed that there were at least three things that have changed that i'll bring to the court's attention that person is that down we have said that the supreme court what had granted know as candidate can't or not in fact he was elected out you know on both tickets in the primary he was the only challenger to district attorney parks miller and presumably will be elected district attorney in november well that's that's up to you which ones you concede i think i have my own sort of charge here as to which ones that i think are the sort of easy maybe we could call him easy affirms that speaking only for myself not my colleagues let's start with height i didn't really see anything in the briefing on a mystery pipe we didn't sue mr pike personally we sued him as a member of the board of commissioners in center county ok and then  negligent infliction of emotional distress is that still for any of the defenses that's the part of the case for appeal i don't mediately recall that that i could not claim in the false lay claim i just didn't see anything about the federal court but all of the things that we wrote in the factual section then and i have i've had this issue in every court that i have argued any aspect of this case and it is very hard to believe that this happened but i actually do believe everything that i wrote in the back to all portion of the brief and pled we think we can prove and i believe the judge agreed and should have permitted us to take discovery and then we would be arguing before him with a summary judgment point where i could back up those papers for instance mr pastor that's that's fine to say but if we start all and all that sort of thing that you that you're familiar with including the ages coming in and swearing to it when he when she tells the detective that she has no knowledge of the ryan richards case that we can test a lie and that is a factual lie used to get the search warrant and that law is as a result of a meeting that judge west testified to at the grand jury that she had with defendant  in order to get a search warrant well if she didn't remember signing the fake bail order in fact that is her recollection then it's not an hat we contested is a lie was when he she tells the detective that she doesn't have any knowledge of the ryan richards case i suggest to you that that is a fact question because it is impossible nothing less we've all don't forget that and when when she doesn't prove what she says to the detective i have no knowledge of the of the one richards case he figures the same thing ari said well no you could forget that so therefore she must not have any knowledge and therefore she when she says she doesn't remember who signed the order it buttresses her the credibility of her recollection that she doesn't didn't sign the order but the the statement i know nothing about the writer richard case is it interviewed too by the police the police go to her she's not she's not signing the warrant she is a factual witness who is approached by a police detective and asked do you know anything about this ryan richards purposes discussion we can assume she was lying right only not steps the strange thing perhaps about judicial immunity sadly from time to time there are judges that have been corrupt  some of them get prosecuted and go to jail but that doesn't mean that the court orders they sign in the other things they do in connection with the legal system aren't protected by judicial immunity does it have done something wrong because the police officers maybe nobody can forget this i'm not sure how you can distinguish between the two and let this move to another let's move to another the fact that the shot ok why isn't it least i think this whole series of communications involving shot not what she did to get to that point but the whole series of communication seems to start at the one vacation comes back to college for thanksgiving break she tells her friend that a physics teacher she had been having an affair the friend reports that to the authorities and up it works its way through the system well the friend was the teacher right and and that an obligation to report to the school system that there was an accusation that another teacher was having been having an affair with  so what happens though is the teacher sues the person who sues we palmore and says that down the power more never intended to make a police report never was involved in the police action until the friend of the teacher a caused that to happen and the court ruled since there was no evidence that the power more the visiting back from thanksgiving girl had any conversation came up the tween her and her her second new employer because she apparently left the d a s office went to work for somebody else and then ended up with mr misworded law for now we don't know how that came we don't know who it is nothing in the complaint about that we don't we don't know we've got to take discover to find to find out ok but what we do know is that there's no effort by shot to advance a criminal purpose and in the case with the with the lady there's the want thanksgiving that she had to a wanted to advance criminal purpose and done something to do that but in this instance very difficult for shock argue that because she  it never tried to get law enforcement involved that she hadn't the record doesn't appear to allege that she asserted it to anyone until she signed an affidavit and i assume ensued from the time she signed affidavit which i believe was in january of fifteen it was december thirtieth of fourteen fourteen jan about how much time elapsed between then and when the  to the university case the the the teacher in that case who was the reporter is analogous to the new employer here and it's not that the person who is a who is aggrieved did not do that they are not going forward with michael pike when they define the defendant the county defendants he is not listed there your honor so it's our interpretation of that they have not gone forward with of the reply brief the appellant indicates that they are not going far with those two causes of action as well additionally in the original brief that the appellant out they did not follow through with their arguments on false light and interests falshood and we have argued that they have waived their positions on those as well your honour's the palin has had numerous opportunities to amend her pleading in this case and based upon the allegations that were set forth in the amended complaint and then the second amended complaint on the face but those documents do not make or set forth any causes of action against any of the center county defendants your honour's the appellant was given great latitude not only when they filed the amended complaint because the all of the defendants had filed motions to dismiss and in fact the county had raised twenty issues twenty defective conditions that they felt were a problem in the complaint there after once we found that and the other defendants filed there we filed our brief and then they found their amended complaint we've raised those twenty issues plus two more to argue that the amended complaint was still the fact judge br afforded all counsel the opportunity to oral argument and in what i believe was a very strenuous discussion with all counsel if you review the transcript you will see he asked the appellant's counsel numerous times about all the causes of action and how they were structured and what other information was necessary or might be needed in order to in that in the claims against them but should of the solicitor none that there was not was perhaps not the correct way to have this case investigated your honor there are two things going on here is something called the attorney's act that attorneys in pennsylvania i think generally know of its existence and you are dealing with the chief law enforcement officer in the county your honor you're looking at two different things there you're looking at the county code versus the of her the commonwealth attorney zack and if you look the statutes for the county code are still valid that allow an investigation second of all the assuming at this point and i'm not saying it's true but assuming i have this point if any of the commissioners or any of my clients went to the bell from police then at that point your hon r somebody went to the gulf so here's here's what happened your honor based upon the facts as alleged by the appellant if you look at reproduced record page number two eighty on january sixth of two thousand and fifteen the police became aware of the allegations against stacy park's mela or on reproduced record page two ninety five and two ninety or on january sixteenth of two thousand and fifteen stacy park's miller contacts the office of the attorney general and notifies them that there is something going on and on that date they agree to take over happened next was the detective assigned to it interviewed certain people that's where you get the allegations against judge rule he also  documents from the courthouse which were the campaign finance documents that showed that there was that stacy parts miller was using her district attorney's office staff to do campaign related activities based on those items that michele showed affidavit and i'm not touching was on a post part of me i thought she was on a pose for reelection i during and there was discrepancies or issues related to those and in fact the grand jury found that there was dominionist activity involved in that but they didn't throw any charges or recommend any charges on that but regardless you had all of this information that the detective looked at put together and then what happened on january twenty three ask based upon the supreme courts of pennsylvania is and some of your honor's may be aware that certain counties share judges common pleas court judges when there are conflicts and pursuant to a standing order issued every january they were that gere judge who has said we can't handle this this this has to go to an out of county judge and that document was produced its and reproduce record a three seventy four at that point they provided they the bell from police provided to the president judge of clinton not a magistrate judge but the president judge of clayton county there warrick and asked if it could be executed he reviewed it and i'm sure looking at the fact there involved the district attorney reviewed it very carefully before he executed that document and the bell from police executed the warrants not only at stacy park smellers office in the district attorney's office but also at the county office and there was probable cause based upon the well reasoned decision by judge breyer thank you thank you  and i do think it's a different situation how do we know she was approached as a judge in respect to that question with respect to her signature clearly she was approached as a judge but what about that issue i think it follows your honor because she's she's going to be asked about her order that she signed so even though you so the only reason the richard question was posed was as a precursor to the discussion about the legitimacy of the order correct they  judge's motive is if there was an alice let's say for some reason the judge signed it then signed an order lied about citing the order it's going to be protected by judicial nudity and there are other protections that that a judge could be subject to or i should say sanctions that a judge could be subject to for instance if a judge was lying about an order of something one of those lines certainly the judicial conduct board of pennsylvania could inquire into that if a judge was lying to law enforcement there's i believe there's a statute about impeding an investigation or providing false information so it's not really grow because there's judicial immunity that you know that if a judge in this state something about an order of does so that afternoon kathleen your check to michelle shot and listening to mr castors argument i want to reshape re frame the shame the adice test that you look to in order to determine whether michelle shot has judicial privilege the test is not that ms shot had to be involved and and pursue a criminal prosecution the test is is there some colorable nexus between the action taken that michelle is alleged to have taken where part is played to parks miller is saying each defendant committed an overt act done in pursuit of a common purpose what was a common purpose to prosecutor stacey parks miller so sure could have been other purposes too though right there there the purpose there could be in twenty seven other purposes a purpose is alleged in the complaint before this court is a common act to prosecute to be involved in a prosecution but there were other allegations namely the shut breach for usury duty by stealing information and giving it to m confidential for for your is your eyes only well confidential doesn't turn it into breach if i do share your duty every single email that i sent out has confidential information on it doesn't turn it into that the michelle is an employee of the the definitions for breach if i do cherie do you know judge brand didn't go into that because he simply dismissed the issues and that was all argued in the brace but if this court looks at my i mean it's seems to me that to get to the grant of judicial privilege you have to well shot didn't do anything wrong it was in connection with a common purpose a colorful connection to the common purpose but i have little bit of trouble grasping what that common  no intent when that's the basis of every claim cept for the email client so you can say there's no immunity if you're saying the actions were all taken to prosecute and testify against someone yeah but i guess if i  can't even know the red light so i guess this is the problem i have been thinking about this i see the argument that the first time she really disseminates at least the first time that the records that she disseminates any that for fifteen months and be in a position then to disseminate a thought i i think that goes beyond what shane v at us called the judicial privilege even though it's markedly different factual situation well if i may respond of thing judge hardman made this point we don't look it false testimonies protected mean testimony can be our a false it can be our ally and it's protected because the whole idea is that we want to allow people to participate in the judicial process and we don't look to ok maybe another cause of action which was not planned very thinking it is a very step in the judicial process out here we're not talking about a judge here we're talking about a paralegal who is alleged to have stolen her boss's information in order to parlay that into a job with a lawyer who was known to be the e mails allegedly first well they say she she worked for the district attorney fifteen months before this so the allegation is that she used these e mails to please her boss to legally prosecute them playing to the plaintive well that there was a period in which he had taken the e mails that he had no business having and kept them with some plan in mind now wasn't having these order in pennsylvania to preach it hard you sure you do you have to be in a position you have to be someone's boss who are you have to meet the elements of that and it doesn't meet the elements of that but we go i guess but the district co pelleas and unless the court has any specific questions with respect to them we're happy to rest on our brief and i rule thirty eight motion court to address we think the judge brinn address that properly and thankfully we have a black and white transcript of mr cantorian statement at the commissioners meeting on january twentieth two thousand and fifteen he repeatedly says in his public comment to the commissioners asking for special prosecutor to investigate district attorney parks miller that these are allegations he doesn't  adopt them as true statements by this point in time on january twentieth either you're going to say now is a true statement well he has to say something is an allegation presupposes that what follows the department to make a report and the affidavit had been circulated in fact one of the television stations a week before january twentieth was on this story there were things occurring at the courthouse there were some protests act was the proper procedure to pursue that investigation or not the defamatory statement is by asking for an investigation you're saying i'm a criminal and all came to one it was doing was asking for an investigation it's something that she parks miller did herself she just went to the office of the attorney general for that investigation in so you know we don't think that the statements and we can look at them in black and white are capable of defamatory meaning additionally there isn't a legislative immunity which i cited to in my proof brief that would apply to his statements and so with that said i would i would rest unless there's any questions thank you mr h good afternoon your honour's i'm stephanie van horn on behalf of attorney majority i did likewise would rest on my brief but would be happy to answer any question will i have a question because i'm troubled by this  allegation that ms shot acted in concert with attorney ms already to take what was in hers from her employer and in the county and give  maturity why is that not an allegation why shouldn't at least the breach of fodor's sure you do the allegation the concerted tortious conduct allegation the conspiracy allegation why shouldn't those three at would concerted action did the alleged with regard to the tourney was already oh my believe they're saying that he encouraged her to report it to the police or release that information release what information the e mails and the affidavit she executed well how could he give that advice to her if he wasn't privy to what the e mails so i believe that there's two separate instances that they're talking about one they're saying the i don't believe that he has to send them back he may have to notify her under the professional yeah well yes exactly i believe that out of the last post that he's supposed to notify the sender that he got them  telling him would i have the goods on mr parks miller in fact not only can i tell you what happened but i have these e mails does he have an obligation to move him a shot i don't want to see those e mails you took them matter started as a result of this involving your client i mean so many many cases there's so many cases flying around here i can't remember whether that's part of the record or not i don't thing was filed against him that's possible it's probably confidential so i wouldn't know about it and i'm not suggesting it should i'm just asking if it was i do not know that i care but why it why doesn't he have some obligation as opposed to saying hey why don't you go see my friend mcgra hill represent you on this and you know to move forward i believe that the rule doesn't apply in this particular instance it deals with when something is inadvertently disclosed to an opposing party now also don't believe that the rule requires you to send it if it's intentional it's a matter for the civil or criminal justice system not for the professional conduct perhaps and i don't believe her claims based on the rules of professional conduct though if she doesn't have to dish or privilege on the claim against her miss shott what does that mean for your client mr mystery i don't believe it's of much consequence because i don't believe there was a breach of fiduciary duty because any duty that has would be to the county she was the county's and chloe not miss parks miller's employee but wasn't there a claim of aiding and abetting if there was no breach of fiduciary duty because as a fact at the very least if it is contrary to what the defense is or arguing at the very least that becomes a fact issue for discovering that the district attorney was found actually innocent by the grand jury and a whole series of things not the least of which is that one mcgraw when i'm not i'm not so sure that that's an accurate statement one and so we're not talking  actually innocent and as we hear it in this court generally but it seems to me that what the green jury did was they chose not to follow any charges against your client oh i don't i don't agree at all  mean they say is it actually said that judge us signed it they found that as a fact right secondly they found it was impossible for the d a to have criminal intent even if she had signed i mean it wasn't it wasn't a jury discretion one of her assistants was running for m d j and asked for a printout of the dates and some things need to be filed and notarized something those are things that the d a s office gave to every human being who walked in the door for free so ok so so they i want to make sure i understand what you're saying you're saying that the report of the grand jury created a question of fact on some of these key questions particularly the signature itself no i am saying that the grand jury didn't create any questions of fact but at the in the light most favorable to the defense and and this proceeding it should to mean if there's anything at odds with the grand jury found and prejudice of a complaint when the point has been given no opportunity to america we did not have benefit of judge grants opinions have an opportunity to weakly separate one small area as it related to the county commissioners and as it relates to the use of privileges and immunities those are defenses that can be raised unless it's absolutely clear and when somebody argues that there are some legislat privilege for the commissioners that all of these things have to be in the context of their employment and commissioners employment is never to investigate and prosecute criminals the grand jury found no evidence that there is no evidence of this that's not what we're doing at that will be six we understand the reading we want winder state if there's one thing we understand it's a distinction between rule twelve or rule fifty six and i can understand why the grand didn't agree with that part and i did cannister why i didn't attempt to frost opinion that we should be allowed to to repleat this is serious business and the and the other side has said that that all of this was designed to get a prosecution to be a absolutely not what we played was all of these things were designed to ruin her career in the court of public opinion in all spheres because it didn't need to be true and didn't need to result in a conviction all you need to do was have a little cut little cut little newspaper article newspaper article newspaper article abuse of process by filing these things that had nothing to do with motions and the young and in fact it worked all right thank you mr castor a court wants to