based on the file ation procedure due process on the fourteenth amendment united states constitution the one of the basic things in this case is louisiana's second circuit court of appeal ruled in this case in a previous context that there was a due process violation that arose from the facts of this this case it was based on the lack of adequate notice in the charging in which mr webb went to trial and he was charged with one violation of local ordinance on february seventh two thousand and seven and he goes to trial to find out that he's really been charged with another five hundred eighty one charges and added to this was a city that was a louisiana state judge who decided he could get fined per day and i know these are squarely the issues before us but i'm trying to figure out what the underlying constitutional violation is because i mean all the time in our court we say a district court messed up gave a sentence that was too excessive or violated this rule or that rule and you're saying that means you can go after the people who brought the case just because the judge imposes a sentence that's later found to be unlawful they're saying anything nearly that broad so what is the constitutional violation not i know why the case got the sentence got reduced but what did the mayors who you're suing basically the mayor in the town do that was unconstitutional when they're just trying to enforce what a state court judge did was violation procedural due process to charge a man with one count on one day and then expand that in the judgment to five hundred eighty one day a judge expanded it well the judge with that was that was submitted to the to the court and expanded it and i think i think the second circuit held there was a violation of his procedural due process and i think that's that that holding with the judge the judge's ruling was unlawful understand that but it was it was not how are you getting to the property came back to my original point of a prosecutor authorizes and starts a prosecution that results in some judge giving a sentence on the statutory maximum you think that prosecutor can later be sued and i know there's an  was in charge of all that and you know that's proposition i think the second circuit ruling is clear violation of due process and i think the mayor and the town of attorneys had a had a you're trying to make qualified immunity is would apply because it's often hard to say that the law was clearly established oh that this was a due process or any other constitutional violation when two levels of court so the contrary the basic rule in qualified immunity is a very reasonable official that probably is what you want to point to every reasonable official would realize they are violating the constitution in this way and we have t on the face of the ticket well it shows that the judgments show no the ticket doesn't show the ticket shows the one day has a blank for it but it wasn't filled and so was not another one that would have learned it was it ever gets it what the amount of the fine is you know mistake i think that's a relevant qualified immunity claim because that's based on objective objective reason when there is and what's in his mind and subjectively in his mind whether it's a mistake and not is irrelevant to the objective really just challenging him and forcing the judgment as i gather you know it's not reasonable to enforce a judgment that that's sort of find with the courts see all and everything maybe maybe yes charges have to fight if you have other judges but to me that's reasonable to rely on  on april fourteenth two thousand and eleven the second circuit decision was made a fourteen two thousand and twelve and it was so they continued to take a hundred percent of his salary until february of second circuit comes out with his decision i don't think it's reasonable while the decision has been reversed any longer and take it one hundred percent of man sever is totally legal really in action though because they set up the payroll deduction i mean the way that usually works you go in the computer and some some clerk sets up a payroll deduction so then this appellate decision comes out your client and just no one went in and changed it was it you don't have any evidence of an affirmative access and we got to keep taking his money do you the mayor wrote and said we're not going to pay you we're not going to one hundred percent or seven and after the appellate ruling no get around to looking after the appellate ruling it seems to me it was just in action they they didn't go in and stop the computerized deduction they already a back door he has the money back we got it back after two years and he's working for two years without been paid i also wanted for the court this court made a previous decision in docket member thirteen three zero six six the court your honors first question was really sort of my first question and this is well in my frustration with the case because i saw this is a situation in which of litigant in this case the  the closing comments of judge roberts i want to go back look especially mr carson today you know my exceeding my authority and so that the from the from that first judgment there was going to be one hundred dollars a day for this continuing period of time the mr webb appeals do the whole thing over and the second judgment comes up with the same conclusion i was a i was a little concerned because in the in the brief that he's going to be hit with this with this judgment as it comes out from judge lancaster or that he wasn't given notice of the judgment is a specific allegation is a summary judgment evidence of that they just say it in brief i pointed of course to the judgment itself which has a occasion indicates not just that it was sent to opposing counsel but in fact quotes with opposing counsel said that he disagrees with the with the judgment that he's he's you know he it's going for the record show it's the first time it came  issue in the case that it would be one hundred dollars a day the issue was discussed and i'm let's see i'm looking at the transcript of the proceedings before judge roberts so that was said the same thing is one hundred dollars a day so i'm going to order that he paid whatever the statute calls for that's one hundred dollars a day from february fourteenth until today i think that they were worried if you go on read what judge roberts was saying he was i think perhaps some of the concern was  sentence it's not a constitutional finding that just said very clearly that the that the other man was charged with one day's violation and the sentence should have been for one day's violation period they do cite in there is mention there the course he's entitled t notice of what he lives what he was charged with but the any charge other than the ticket something else could fall out after the ticket before the nearest court present i do not believe so your honor not that i'm aware of i think that there was the initial charge and then there was a notice of some type that i think may have letters weeks later but i don't know what other kind of numbers you just leave me on face or to could you can tell what the fine is i don't quite see why it's considered one day worse is continuing violation that also doesn't seem clear from the ticket i was one what else was explaining this to make could be just as much of a due process violation if you know explaining any better what the violation is but i was looking for other documentation but it doesn't sound like there is any there is i think there is i've seen in the record i don't believe i had there's there was no allegation there's no part where's the policy here in other words and if you look at the as you look at the complaint there is there's really no where in it that indicates i here's a missile policies and this was violated and i grin of course it doesn't necessarily have to be official written policy but what's the policy here the mayor the only actors the only people who are doing anything i think of relevance is going to be the mayor and although not really asserted as such in the complaint as the case and was told to move the trailers and basically just plant his feet and said i'm not going to move it's not doing and so after a period of time a town then said well if you're not going to move in we're going to do this and your final stop as soon as you move the trailers move the trailers of time passes and the judgment amount increases i forget that what the record certainly shows the amount of time that passed between the two  trial proceedings which which was substantial and that you know the money's the number just keeps going up and as the judgment from judge roberts made clear until such time as the trailers removed from was so i think that's why i think that from the town administration standpoint and there was bad blood between the mayor and this gentleman and that's why the mayor wasn't sitting as miracle was in the record i mean what i did there was did there had been some sort of a and rendered this judge the mare as he indicates in his affidavit really took no other active role other than to tell the tell attorney do what you do and so here comes the judge now what do we do that is not choices to the attorneys so now you know now the militia probably is responsible for whatever what came out of that and i guess my point my point is though that in a case like this there's nothing this is not one of these cases where there's some you know a conspiracy between the prosecutor of the sheriff to railroad something i mean there's no all that the go all the lawyers and fix it this is policy the policy is here's this ticket just like you do a speeding ticket or anything else transcript as he looked at it he found he interpreted as being a violation and he interpreted the penalty his being this amount per day based on the single by lation he did not heed that judge despite the fact that the court had no and that and i mean whatever that may be to complete the circle does it just isn't this hauling off and doing this is going before court and accepting the judge of the court and then prepared a judgment as directed by the court back to the municipal liability question in collecting the judgment which it seems to me that's really more his complaint that's on the collection and taking the money out of his alderman's wages and the you know getting the land and i'm looking at the mayor's affidavit he repeatedly says he delegated that those decisions to you know if he did not and that was consistent with his practice i directed koch to proceed with the collection efforts yes i allowed town attorneys  the manner they felt was best in the light upon their knowledge in the syrian there's more to that effect that's the why why doesn't that make the town attorney you the policy maker for the collection efforts because there's not a policy here is to just mean that the authority of the town attorney is set by statute and it's basically in the statute cited in the in my brief it's basically to act as the attorney representing the mayor and there of course the mare could have exercised whatever level of authority wanted to we never had decisions in this case that was at this point had to milk collected in this way i mean you don't you know there's different ways to collect a judgment and you can say you know what it's not worth it i mean those are decisions that get made there are decisions and so what was pursued was they did it with there was a judgment debtor examination there was a recognition that this gentleman was receiving money from the town and the offset of that money was lost was a lawful way to collect the judgment and so they proceeded with  read all these are trying to read all these cases one of the same thing it is when the i think when the town has to make an election of about a specific way to proceed in a case which election collected was less than that because they're withholding some things that had to be done so he was credited with what was left after that amount just don't have the precise figure to give you i can tell you from the dates of the the second circuit ruling was in  fact that when the supreme court denied the towns with application you still need to go in three months and now it's an oversight that's that's the upside i'm not at all suggesting that the town's active in collecting it even following the second sort of ruling that was no error and the only evidence in the record is that was an error so i mean to the extent that's that's what the law is so i mean the fact the matter is that because the history rose anything else nobody's trampling anybody's rights they're represented defendant and who chooses not to appeal the judgment and then comes back later out of time with them with this no motion so i don't think that that's a const there's no constitutional violation there if there is that i think you have a constitutional violation every time there's a court that renders a sentence that exceeds the statutory limit or does any number of things and so i suggest that the district court opinion w enemies they were prominent in the african american community where i was a coach in a local team when we had gets elected to the board of all of them in the first meeting is that the mayor has  it's what they're doing is obvious policy there is small policy decisions like in the pm barbara the city of cincinnati case the policy was the prosecutor's decision county prosecutor's decision with those who were basically using him to pursue a debtors prison whether put people in jail until they paid what some credit was owed judge an absolute immunity but but you're still going to have an action against the individual to seems to me that's a major distinction here there's no believe if they had a reason to believe in that accuracy of the lower court's decisions that's irrelevant from monorail law building a constitutional right was violated on the second circuit decision that's collateral stop stop on this court and whether they thought it was valid or not is irrelevant to mono it may be relevant to the qualified immunity matter but is not relevant to mo now and basically what we have here and our view  is that government overreach in the government abusing its right and to to take people's property rights and that's that's that's the fundamental essence of due process and we