hundred eighty three to work claim and pendant state to work claims at this point on appeal with the issues are about fourth amendment malicious prosecution due process first amendment retaliation begin by an investigation made by a complaint by his ex wife there's again the record viewed in light most favorable to my client the plaintiff shows that in the beginning the complaining witness ms rowe has showed up with a bunch of e mail saying he's sent me these admittedly not very pleasant emails but at the same time she submitted emails from herself to the best of getting officer officer drug where she's extorting money from my client and see if you don't give me money i will go to the police and accuse you of threatening and harassing right but then even with that because the standard is that we supplied the allegedly this when we're dealing with probable cause in the malicious prosecution case you have to look at each count alleged individually there is probable cause to support that he asked with respect to that he needed to you need to stink injury from that caused by the arrest to make that argument and i and if so what's the distinct injury here from the prosecution that's distinct from the arrest your honor it is my understanding that the key slowing this is the injury is for each count carries its own injury because the prosecution goes forward entails different bond different approach in court more time in court additionally attorneys get it in this case because it seems to me you don't have that claim in this case like i well understand that if if you could shout that you would be able to argue that well probable cause for one violation doesn't necessarily absolve them from meeting probable cause for another but i don't see how the prosecution was expanded or bailey concrete east or any other of the things that usually allow a malicious prosecution claim to be  false arrest like well your honor is again this is not the grounds on which the district court decided again district court decided it was probable cause absolutely there was therefore  qualified immunity applies he did not address each count and again we're talking about attorney's fees here count he had to retain counsel his counsel actually retained counsel on the violating the order in any event but his fees would have been different i'm sorry his fees would have been different what's the evidence of that again your honor this was not part of the defendant's summary judgment argument and in the district court and but there is evidence in the the information that was provided there may be a question about the stalking but if there is how to how does the get that added charge how did that affect your client adversely in any way your honor i think officer i'm sorry sergeant maestas testimony that's in the record yet this is his version of how he said the bond after somebody else and the bod before him we reviewed the case based on all the allegations in the under  seriousness of it and that's how we determine the bond so once again they were in both knowledge at the same time the right the stalking and the violation they were all knowledge at the same time that is correct but he have made the lesser bond where's the evidence  that there was no evidence of that nonetheless the higher bond means that it still has to be paid up because this is summary judgment and so the injuries that he was detained and if your client could not have made the original bond and retained counsel and kept it is fundamental the counsel charge based on the allegations if it's one count of violations of a protective order the few wouldn't be the same as stalking four counts of violation of a protective order this is exactly the same thing she told to officer go write that she called my client and then she told her that he took her son to manchester hospital officer there i also put in her affidavit that mr fernandez admitted to making a phone call and he said his testimony i never said that i said she called me i called her family in michigan i let her know that you know our son is father's but he said what are these e mails about but ultimately at that visit my client said hey she's threatening me she's harassing me i'm just responding back hey if you don't stop i have an immigration complaint against and i'm going to file by the way here's an immigration complaint look puts a dot on the table says by the way i can show you all the e mails let's go i don't have internet connection at my house let's go downstairs to  think is that not true did you demonstrate that's not true no your honor but i don't think that's a material fact in this case whether or not she provided him with the e mails she never denied making those e mails you never said oh she said she showed me the e mails but she didn't and that's what matters in this case that's besides the point they both knew which e mails they were talking about the nature is what was represented in the affidavit my client explained what the e mails were about offer to show more e mails showed him her the immigration complaint he was referred to none of that is in the affidavit in fact the affidavit states mr fernandez couldn't explain what the e mails were about want how many explain the phrase don't make me your executioner your honor what's the explanation for that yeah i would say this i understand how the emails are rather damning evidence in this case there is was an alternate translation between executioner and punish and what that's a punisher dear was another  during one of the depositions the interpreter translated from a spanish ultimately this isn't about samantha nice husband punishing his wife and what what does he have in mind and why shouldn't she be concerned about it and isn't that isn't that a form of harassment well your honor in context if somebody sends you an e mail and says by the way you better pay for my phone or else i'm calling the police when i say five hundred dollars a paraphrase it don't make me your executioner i mean you know because he's not a preponderance standard to suggest that he is not a violation of that order at byte by having these kind of conversations with wife just strikes me as very difficult to maintain your honor i do understand the gravity of sort of an objective reading of these things therefore i think the more salient issue here is the stalking charge of this made up story about laptop tracking through a cell phone of a cousin which doesn't pan out one month and somebody actually reads officer guys on reports which is later which according to her she took her  the more salient and better argument is lek of probable cause in a context of a malicious prosecution of the two counts one of violating a protective order making a phone call that never took place  has never said took place and i know the defendants also rely on this written statement that ms rowe has to have to the officer garage however at her deposition again viewing the record and like most favorable to the pla at one point ms rowe has looks at the document reads and says that's not that's not my statement that's my signature that's not my statement so i guess you're not alternately you know this were before a jury after defendant's counsel adequately cross examines her the jury might say ok well how could it possibly not be her statement i understand the practicalities her signature isn't it which is not hers but right now at summary judgment where this is really a question