standing for the proposition that mere conclusion reallocations that a plane is version of a vet is inconsistent with like police report doesn't prove or doesn't raise the tribal issue as to whether or not the police report misrepresented material facts ok this is the actual quote from sloan so sloman did not and does not point to any evidence of such fabrication other than the fact that the officer reports were inconsistent with sloman zone account of the incidents leading his arrest such concludes reallocations standing alone  putting plaintiffs in a position where if it's just his word against the officers that the officer his testimony has evidence revalue but the plaintiffs and that's not consistent with the federal rules of evidence and it's not consistent with fifty six the federal civil procedure that was i really think was a missed it was a statement that was made in sloman that was to some extent victor because the police were not too from less prestige or for false arrests but they just say search such conclus recites specific facts and i submit that if that there were plenty of very specific facts that were submitted by the point if to show that the officers version was a deliberate misrepresentation that was made as report which resulted in this criminal prosecution i think there's no reason why the plaintiff's testimony should be giving should be given any less and actually value than the was the just the gay demonstration case where the person was arrested at a demonstration and was taken in from assisting an officer in that case the the information came from the police force three that the police report contradicted each other it says given the circumstances the jury is free to find that the police made misrepresentation prosecutor and responsible from a criminal action ok the fact that there was a declaration this case about you know what happened with the prosecutors doesn't matter there's no dispute that the only information that was available to the prosecutors of the filing was the police you know what i'm suggesting is that sloan doesn't say what some might say it says i think the clues are really allegation does not me but specific factual allegations in face of a presumption though it tells us the minimum that's required to overcome that presumption you can't stand up for example and simply argue and sloman says you can't just have the unsupported allegation of the defendant in face to preserve there's a reason for sloman the one of the other side submitted declarations of two prosecutors saying that all they did was consider the police reports and that no one interest or interfered with their independent judgment the instant case there is no evidence regarding what the issuing district attorney did her name was kelly the courage and she's not been deposed there's no evidence in the record as to what she did and my posing counsel says it's undisputed that all that existed was the police report well that's that's not true and i would i would refer iran as to the supplemental excerpts of record beginning at page three ninety one and what you'll find there is a seven page single spaced letter from counsel for the plaintiffs to the prosecutors itemizing all the pieces that didn't say he wants many of which he already had videotapes audiotapes things of that nature so the reason this case is stronger for the defense than sloman is that there is no evidence as to what the prosecutors did it's the plank it's burden to rebut the presumption that the prosecutor exercised in independent judgment and all that he ha submitted is the testimony of the plaintiffs and incompetent declaration of plaintiff's counsel the summary judgment came at the end of discovery or the discovery it came at the end of discovery and of discovery right he didn't take the deposition of the prosecutor he did not he did not and the record includes a letter that i sent to counsel even after the discovery cutoff date even when judge taylor decided to address this sloman smitty issue after the first hearing on summary judgment record four sixty one he could've taken i suppose the deposition of the supervisor the prosecutor did he take the deposition of the other arresting of the other officer who came later on this thing i don't recall brother he offered nothing as to what the prosecutor considered we have the presumption the presumption is overcome by nothing except the offer testimony of the plaintiff and solomon and the other cases on this subject particularly morris taking over the case his former junior partner shall harrell have the case and i both talked and understood that the only evidence that was submitted to to the d a s office was the police reports ok and so we had this gentleman's agreement because women dealing with each other for almost twenty years now ok then mr harold leaves mr morris office and after that that's what all this happens and so you know that i mention this court is willing to say that if an officer is alone in a room with a man or woman and beats them and then there is the framework for a crime that that person has to go through a criminal proceeding and to file accurately all the money some problem the horror of having to go through this and their testimony is not sufficient to even raise any evidence on a presumption in favor