thank you your honor and good afternoon good afternoon counsel is the court i'm pool on behalf of plaintiff alan mister want to spencer i would request reservation of seven minutes for  this case is on appeal from a summary dismissal by the district court of all of the stor spencer's claims the entirety of the dismissal turning in appropriately on a single issue a finding of probable cause and its relationship to the materiality elements of a judicial deception claim additionally there was error because mister spencer was deprived of any opportunity to conduct protection his th amendment rights were violated and he was targeted unconstitutionally for foresman prosecution by a pelleas evidence presented to the district court established all of his claims with regard to a summary judgment question or alternatively with or to a federal rules will be six question steve really there are some dates that are important as a  the hearing was held on october st and the decision here on appeal was rendered shortly thereafter the issue of discovery does have a standard of review element an opportunity to conduct discovery as well as the request for relief under rule fifty six dollars d which was never ruled upon until after a conclusion was made about summary judgment find an instrument we leave out the full spectrum of the flames and the facts relating to those claims so there was conduct there is information yet to be found out about relating to conduct took place after january th as an example where it's been admitted by a pelleas that any alleged probable cause dissipated or was destroyed by the information that at that point became abundantly clear that there was no probable cause so i think they stopped prosecuting but that doesn't mean they ever admitted there with no probable cause which actually outlines a series of unconstitutional searches and threatens charges against mister spencer and his wife there was a clear break as of january th that there was no existing there after the prosecution continued until the end of february which also creates another issue for discovery as it would relate to the communications between pelleas county and  what changed in january that showed that there couldn't have been probable cause again both your client and his lawyer abundance of communication from then and former attorney mister can rattle its bats had the explicit statements showing fraud and misrepresentation on are so discovery relating to this spectrum of issues in particular also ms berger mister spencer's bank by way of website where he makes statements about what this ms burger told him which run contrary to explicit statements made by that same institution in  writing and via audio messages which we presented to the court showing that either there is something going on internally inconsistent with the bank's response to the fraud and identity no other evidence of that other than his version of what she said so an opportunity to discover money on that issue would prove out that question on falsity which  that relates to the equal protection claims and the intentional deception there as well as the deception and what knowledge he had independent of subjective objective analysis under probable cause but it relates to what knowledge he had as he persisted in the unconstitutional enforcement and attempts to prosecute mister spencer so i c mention the may th investigation i think it's called the statement of investigating officer dated may th and you referenced a moment ago that there was the threat of arrest that was present  where in the record does it show that the your client if that your client was aware of the may th investigation report or that he had been threatened with further wra that charges had not yet been decided upon conduct with regard to search is continuing against the spencers in particular e mail accounts and email communications so search warrants were still being used under those false statements of facts as searches against him as we relate to that need for affidavit which specifically enumerates how the facts and mister and detective that socks you relate to charges that could be brought against mister spencer which contradicts the overwhelming evidence known to him about mister spencer's innocence and the singular culpable behavior again getting no confirmation that there would not be a can even again and arrest the dismissal without prejudice means that they or is available to law enforcement and the prosecution to renew charges or bring different charges and considering the darius the toll in injury that occurred prior to th mister spencer would be aware of them conducting that activity again his e mail accounts and financial institutions and again if we back up we have the issue of january th to february  destroyed and had dissipated and that activity continued and this is all these are all facts issues in law that were not confronted analyzed or discussed by the district court so on that issue of presiding over a civil case that mister spencer had anding against righty of defendants relating to the home purchase of those defendants were marie aunts and her husband both of which were former law enforcement officers with the spoken police department they were colleagues of detective lead stock in the bleach chief and there's evidence thus far in the record showing that there was a friendly relationship between detective levy and mister pence the litigation was underway and the forged order came to light there was a chill cause hearing on november the end of november until mid may no action was taken to prosecute mister brown it was and in fact no efforts were undertaken to even investigate mister  detective make clear that the reason why he focused on mister spencer st what he with the one with the financial motive he with one who sent the fact though why why why is that such an unreasonable thing for that hack of to have done evidence evidence could be destroyed that was material so an expression that mister spencer was at risk of destroying evidence materials that their case runs directly contrary to the notion that it were suggest that it's just a sequel and joel effort in order to secure the right perpetrator but the problem is here they made statements that were directly contrary to that and undermined that because they are concerned with it to document i e evidence why is it unreasonable to say well that person may also have the ability or willingness to tamper with evidence right my my commentary was why isn't it reasonable to start with the person who thought that was the facts of the forged document who has the financial motive you're going to start with that person that's really the only thing that is reasonable and start with the right well actually with regard to the actually never state evidence material to those elements still the motivation is actually undermined by the evidence they were aware of with regard to mister spencer from the file there is not a financial advantage to mr spencer of any kind when you have a relatively low value case on appeal and you have a supersede us bond available to you the financial advantage and the city is folk him i want to briefly touch on the discovery issue because there was a argument made that the trial court did not resolve pending discovery motions and i don't think that is accurate least as it relates to my client's the chronology that mister cool explained as far as the filing of the motions the discovery left off that  my client's did provide discovery answers on september th of two thousand and nineteen which of course was ten days or twelve days before the summary judgment hearing those  discovery answers were supplemented on september th two thousand and nineteen and i believe in total there were over five thousand dollars pages of documents responsive to request for production that were produced  with those discovery answers and that is relevant because first of all mister spencer had those documents and have those discovery answers prior to the summary judgment hearing  long before the summary judgment order was issued and judge peterson at the hearing specifically addressed the f r c p five thousand and sixty continuous motion and ask counsel of the exact same question the judge freeland asked today and that is what additional discovery do you believe is necessary in order to oppose summary judgment a counsel answered judge pearson as he did today but what he was not able to answer and what he is unable to answer today is how that additional discovery would have made any suggest that her or the cracked ness of that decision is reflected in the fact that between the time the discovery answers were provided with five thousand pages of documents  through the time of the summary judgment was entered there was not any motion made by mister spencer to supplement the record or to renew the fifty six f motion or submit issues that i believe are certainly dispositive of the federal causes of action and likewise dispositive of the state law causes that action the st of which is as addressed by mister cool as the existence of probable as the court had not recognized it is for this court to decide whether or not there wasn't fact probable cause in addition to what the trial the st things he did was to obtain a complete copy of the court file from the underlined civil action and that underline civil action contained as one of the pleads a december  st two thousand and seventeen findings of fact in conclusions of law in support of sanctions that was entered by judge moreno and in that document judge marino burlington northern and that that document was a forgery judge my know also in that scene document found quote on or about october rd two thousand fencer filed if false police report with the spokane county sheriff's office regarding s a oregon's lawful attempts to collect upon it's just really against them to one of your honor's asking about evidence of intent or whether it was reasonable for a detective love sock to start his investigation by looking into answer i think that in addition to the fact that he acts that forged document to his employer and we do have to look at the order and what judge i'm merino found addition to the argument that there is not probable cause is that there was judicial list to suction and as it relates to the judicial disruption mister spencer never identified for the court any knowingly false representations made by a detective to the court or any knowingly false omission made to the court instead mr spencer argues that there was probable cause for the arrest as it relates to the argument an additional discovery was needed in order to look at the  are is absent and therefore again the need for the court to look at the intent of detective we have soft is missing so for those reasons  so as the deputy prosecuting attorney and i was in harlem and for the war and when he was arguing was that good cause exists for the war in the reasons he going argument was defendant small but i see business dealings in washington and montana and informally states that there is a potential risk for the defendant to seek refuge outside the state of washington again that's an argument based on the information that was provided number three was he references information he got from detective left saw regarding mister spencer's residence and that he was to seek this war so based on knows the warrant was issued and again nothing that mister evans did places him in the position of being a complaining  is entitled to absolute immunity and the sections exist where they're doing administrative we're doing investigative work and none of those situations eases in this case was acting in his role as a prosecutor furthering the lineage of the investigation and the prosecution this also applies mister spencer and that again is a prosecutor's decision which is to unity the reasons for the immunity are long listed in the employer case too fast as a basis for probable cause as opposed to making legal arguments and so i think i'm proud to say i'm the st attorney day to spin it in short and if anyone has who lacked references to the record in that regard because the record really actually does not have the discovery that they point to and for that matter five thousand  review after responses do is the very reason we have relief under fifty six dollars d there's also additional discovery that was outlined with specificity to the trial court that would have related to issues on  claims which hasn't been noted that under for example the spencer eaters case probable cause its presence or absence is actually not material to the equal protection claims which underlying court record in reference to the superior court judge's order which in texturally was presented ex parte and was immediately vacated once there was an actual presentation about relating to the case that you was representing clients on so with notice he failed to appear and in my experience if the attorney does not show for such a hearing i think that's actually more than a red probable cause and we presented evidence again this case you know was dismissed before i had an opportunity to actually travel any distance there is reason to believe and we presented evidence that there was while there are a number of frogs that he perpetrated that additionally one of the record not an estimated but a th time allowed him to keep that going and i just want to mention also that the selective  the failure to actually take the genuine complaint by mister spencer and investigate it is also an equal protection my lation because it's really to provide protective services which was also not confronted by the