respectfully request five minutes to be there for a bottle as your honour's are aware this case has a very extensive factual background that also is intertwined with a criminal proceeding and if this was a trial on the merits a review of this would be necessary however as we are just looking at a question of law is there a plug ability of qualified immunity it doesn't appear necessary to delve into these facts and so if it's ok with the court i will say the time of detail in these facts and just apply them through my analysis so after the briefings as a stand in this matter it appears that for the court to determine the a plague ability of qualified immunity there are two separate issues that need to be determined whether to whether the district court erred by not making a determination as to qualified immunity and then whether it qualified immunity is a pleasurable as to the remaining charges against defendant anger this is just to finish the st to start the qualified immunity was properly brought not only on one occasion but on three separate instances we raised the defense of qualified immunity in our answer to the segment a complaint we then raised the issue of qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss where the district court properly in accordance with the president of this court reserve chairman ation on that until later stage in the proceedings what is the claim on which you're claiming qualified immunity we're claiming qualified immunity as to all federal claims against mr yeager and as it stands today that would be the conspiracy for a civil rights or the civil rights conspiracy or the civil rights conspiracy a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of crowley by doing what in this case it would be by maliciously prosecuting  ok so that's really the only thing that you're claiming qualified immunity for at this point because you won on summary judgment on the merits on three other claims yes your honor and so as it stands today the district court made no determination at all as to any of the claims as to qualified immunity as this court is aware when the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised the district court must fully and completely make a determination steps set forth with perception the basis for its determination it did not do that here if you look at the memorandum opinion and order in the record it's clear they knew they needed to do this they did it for defendant corbett but it didn't affect the other claims that you won on the summary judgment by saying that there was no violation of a right in the fact the district court was going through step one of qualified immunity so shouldn't we get right to the point that i thought this appeal was focusing on should qualified immunity be granted to younger on the conspiracy to buy only civil rights by militias prosecution yes your honor so as it pertains to the conspiracy to violate the civil rights by malicious prosecution we would have started the district court in its opinion appears to say that because there is an alleged constitutional violation as to defendant corbett the conspiracy rads through to defendant jaeger however looking at the case law on qualified immunity a person when qualified immunity  against public officials i suppose that is one of his job functions as an ethical obligation more than anything as a county attorney he's really procedural and civil aspects of the county he's not really a criminal investigator however he has this ethical obligation of being proactive when he's informed of alleged wrongdoing by another county employee and that's what happened here a question for you from what was his role in the prosecution as opposed to sort of assertion be that the memorandum he drafted was the catalyst that started this whole thing but once he drafted the memorandum and handed it over to the district attorney here essentially washed his hands of it he had no role well suppose hypothetically that made up something verse to crowley and put it in this memo with the intent hypothetically causing a prosecution crowley jaeger gives this memo to the person who's going to prosecute the d in the da then goes ahead and prosecute because the d a hypothetically in your client yeager had an agreement that it would be great maliciously to prosecute crowley would that allow a claim of conspiracy against your client to go forward i know it's an convoluted hypothetical but i think it could allow a claim to go for it but then again actually prosecuting this claim himself was an allegation that anything in the report was made up i believe there was an allegation that facts were admitted but i'm not sure as to what those facts were as it is my understanding of this memorandum it basically set forth these allegations and then proceeded to state the statute violated it and then mr jaggers belief that the statute had been violated or the inspections done without a license yes oh probably assist your friend harm as a result but was has to do with arguments to why you didn't foreclose but i believe that would be to his interpretation of the statute which was supported by their their witness at trial mr fraley who talked about how the statute did not start to run until the st inspection was began whereas mr yeager and then and the legal department of the fire marshal's office interpreted that sachi to mean that the statute the one year limitation began running as soon as he took office and so i think it's this is stinks in there and so when you're to obtain your license if you yes so it's when you're either at the start of the office or from the st date of inspection and based on that confusion between this two parties even if this court was to find that mr younger did have an underlying constitutional violation here it would seem to me that it would appear that these that this violation was not unreasonable as the legal department of the fire marshal's office did confirm his his belief that this statute started when the th when he took office and he had those twelve months beginning when he took office to get certified and so it is our assertion here that that of itself shows it was not unreasonable i know the plaintiff has asserted that his and reasonless was largely in the prosecution of him but once he got to the point of prosecution mr yeager had no role he could not tell the district attorney hey i don't think you can meet your elements because that is not his job he cannot direct the district attorney there are two separate offices here to where that cannot happen further as it pertains to anderson county in the event that this court does determine that mr yeager did not violate the constitutional rights of mr chorley we would assert their claims are inextricably intertwined the plaintiffs made no specific individual claims against anderson county so as such all the claims rise and fall with the guilt or innocence of mr yeager and therefore we would assert that if the court finds mr yeager i mean they would also need to dismiss  politically motivated can you help me understand what the story is about this prior violation that was supposedly ignored are you referring to lisa company i believe is her name with that i believe that would be the other violation alleged violation and she was an employee under mr croly at the time and yes i do not believe that they did see charges against her but he was the overarching supervisor who in my mind  instructed with ensuring that all of his employees were as well certified i do believe she got certified throughout the process but i do see the hesitance there with not a certain targets against them but it's and eighty three violation so if qualified immunity is granted punitive damages are nonexistent as well thank you thank you dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction simply because the issue of qualified immunity has been answered and answered negatively as to mr corbett mr jaegers claim or issue of qualified immunity simply is moot ninety three dollars action was dismissed that's what it applies to the history of qualified immunity is a common law oh defense to prevent a public servant jaeger to the case is now civil conspiracy to violate civil rights conspiracy to render false testimony and the punitive damages so none of those would be determined by a qualified immunity defense in his case of sorry i'm not understanding i thought yeager once qualified immunity on the civil conspiracy to violate the civil rights this morning is the st time we have  explicitly heard that stated that way there is no authority for that no authority meaning no authority to say that qualified immunity would extend to a civil conspiracy theory civil c why isn't it just like jaeger was sued for malicious prosecution and the district court granted summary judgment and yeager is also sued  civil conspiracy to violate civil rights by militias by participating in a plan to maliciously prosecute and i thought that's one of the three issues that on appeal well the the qualified immunity defense only applies to the direct nine hundred and eighty three action does not apply to the civil conspiracy action that was never why doesn't it apply well st it was never raised in the trial court it was never argued never brief there is no authority that i have found that says that if there isn't already i thought there was there was not a motion on the conspiracy to render false testimony claim that's correct but that was different i thought there were two different claims now well punitive damage right and i understand the point that these a v the conspiracy to render false testimony claim yegor didn't move for summary judgment into that claim arguably we have to let go forward he made no argument cited no authority on the st point that the qualified immunity defense would somehow prevent the conspiracy claim it's the same as used that doesn't mean he didn't undertake activities to support mr corbett in going forward with the of prosecution and what so as the conspiracy factual connection is lengthy and frankly compelling beginning with the memorandum that he penned that he wrote in the summer of thirteen or jenner of fourteen presented to county commission which side of the statute he claims that there was a one your grace period that expired he didn't even read the administrative rules of the the state department foreign marshall which had the authority to enforce this didn't even read the regs which say that the one your grace period starts with a st inspection not by one point mr crawley was the had many other duties he filled in on five occasions to do inspections they were all done within a twelve month period the state farm marshals official represented testified at the criminal trial about this regulation and that there was no violation of the grace period there never was a violation of the licensing or certification requirement say it was it can't be negligence that he didn't read that let's say that you're correct that it's just he did a poor job in satisfying himself that there truly was the crawly which was outside his jurisdiction unlicensed so where to  memorandum was written in january of twenty four to mean he also contacted four marshals office they told mr crawley to stop doing inspections while we sort this out it was their job to investigate and pursue any action and they did not mr jaeger the county law director didn't do anything either for almost three months until an april of two thousand and fourteen when he learned that there was an effort to who organize and alister suit against him by friends of the county mayor who was mr croly supervisor that's when he called the d a and the t b i and met with them and the criminal investigation that's to me the most significant fact shows his intent to cooperate and violate this now if that's too attenuated to make him directly certainly some liable under civil conspiracy of entered i sort of missed this explanation that it was the dutch limitations because i could see an argument that you have a year the statute gives you a year to get your license so if you don't have it on day one you have a year to do it and there's no doubt that crowley was outside the one year period where there is no there's no doubt that he was not outside when you are there's no there's no doubt that that inspections happened more than a year after he took office so so did did you talk to give us explanation was a sex but it was this reading of the mystery of code ever made given to younger and younger sort of ignored it and said i think it's the other way or do you just sort of miss the issue as a lawyer mr only as a contractor he he was called investigating he didn't even know what it was about that point it was it was in the course of the crime it that you say be met and he didn't even ask the question what it was about i mean what's that that what you all know i didn't even met about the particular point of the grace period there is a twelve month grace period that by regulation starts based on job duty not not the hiring date that was explicitly testified to by the state for marshall jaeger who's the one initiating all this never looked at the reg never asked the question never presented that evidence that's one facet of the lack of information presented in the prosecution the other one is early know about this legal interpretation but he i mean not not when not when mr gager initially talked to you know what was crowley's explanation for why he was doing these inspections subordinate that was as she was a sort of a she was the supposedly qualified inspector and the other point about what mr jaeger knew she had been determined two years before this to be  certified there was investigation there was a work out by the state for most of mr hague was involved in all of this and made no criminal referral this criminal referral was specifically in retaliation before he met with mr clarke and mr corbett to initiate the investigation his younger he had heard about it specifically from a sheriff's deputy who called in telling he'd been asked to participate that's clearly his testimony that was that with the timing of that is from our standpoint in packable improving the motivation of why do this if the other point of this criminal statute is that there must be an immediate risk to the safety life and welfare of a person there was never any evidence developed by anyone of that there was no homeowner complaint no contractor complaint well that's nothing i mean i mean i suppose the purpose of the licensing law is to make sure the front of the people who are inspecting homes and offices are ensuring that it's a state facility and you're saying just because one didn't fall down that it's just the technical certification had not been completed remember he was able to test right he did fail well you know tests are tests and knowing how to do stuff is something else there was never any suggestion  inspections were not correct they were verified by an engineer that was done immediately upon the indictment it was there was never any evidence developed and i guess that might  tennessee legislature that put this licensing rule in place for a reason that they thought it important that people be inspected when they're doing these jobs because they may trying to stem the stories the story is that jaeger knew about the one year omitted this a mystery of code issue that we also didn't know about apparently lists the sequences mr jaeger intentionally ignored the violation for why do you say that i'm i know you bet that seems a big important feature here why do you what do you base that there are letters in the record to and from the state for marshall when this miss crown plea was stopped in fact suspended because she had been doing inspections this is all before two years prior martial letter said what with respect to yankers knowledge about that the timing of the licensure in regard to ms crumpler mr jaeger was in the he was copied on the correspondence there was a real workout plan initiated in writing by the former director of this office the former mr crow if you will and it was all worked out administratively with the state for marshall triggered when it matters that you have inspected unlicensed certainly and that informed him about the role of the state office is that the more important thing that he should have just let not do another inspection until this is resolved or i get certified he did not there was no urgency why i couldn't yeager at that point having contacted the fire marshal the fire marshal having contacted crowley why couldn't jaeger forward a memo on to the district attorney at that point saying that you should know about this because there was no evidence no indication at all ever of a violation of the criminal statute the criminal statute expressly provided required this danger to the public there was never wasn't that the duty argues or questions let's say what's the what is the sin in yeager sending the memo because he could depend upon the prosecutor to say yeah there's nothing here he didn't just send a memo he called a meeting again almost three months later after all this had been resolved would you want to say it was more than sending a memo yes all right he had learnings th using very familiar eating occur that meeting occurred on april the nd twenty four today in the d a s office which is in the same building as mr ayers and and you took depositions of everybody presented his position that mr crawley ought to be criminally investigated and prosecuted for a statute which he clearly for said that at the meeting jaeger presented that to mr corbett according  investigator yes he he was then charged with investigating whether or not crowley had done anything criminally he undertook treves to god he talked to the homeowners to the contractors he talked to six wright county commissioners who were who knew nothing and he it is he who decided to move forward wouldn't having known everything that he knew which he did the investigation on are not the dips been in here who's seeking qualified immunity right the defendant was never never changed his mind he gave another sworn statement in september which supported the investigation that's in the record as sure yes you're correct when he said that you would have more information than we have time for some but yes but i do have two quick questions when when you are called the fire marshal on the farm i shall then called croly and said cut it out to the fire marshal you've misinterpreting the statute this period actually runs from a different time there was never any follow up i gave her the that the far marshal simply wrote to mr crow instead don't do it we've had this issue come up and he did not there was again mr jaeger never even looked at the rag i'm not i was really so he didn't see me he doesn't look at the rate because the fire marshal who you are telling us is familiar with the regen testified to a trial the foreign marshal doesn't say yeah hey you missed you missed an issue or you're out of line here were we're not going to call him because your legal basis for doing is wrong well but again consider the timing this this entire thing was over in january there was nothing else done until april  jaeger because he for whatever reason felt politically threatened and initiated with the dea i mean he had two and a half months to do it if there'd been some reason to do it you know damages you had a chance to brief that i think in your brief to this court  is there anything more that is there any more to the story with respect to punitive damages or is it basically what you this same story was also have two pages of bullet points  prior to mr crawley taking office were nothing of a criminal investigation was initiated and where you had this confusion about five inspections done arguably is foreseen or within the grace period punitive damages claim has to rely on some underlying wrong what what do you tie the punitive damages claim to the conspiracy between mr jaeger and mr corbett to not present the entire our truth of this matter to anyone where they willfully went forward through this entire prosecution with no another grace period no evidence of any urgency of any danger risk under the criminal statute so with which i had to your civil rights conspiracy to violate the civil rights vs malicious honour's as to the civil conspiracy allegations of how qualified immunity should apply here since their civil conspiracy claim has been pled numerous ways i believe i mentioned in a footnote and the response they've called a civil rights conspiracy there are numerous ways you can have a civil rights conspiracy however the district court in its memorandum opinion and order treated it as a nine eighty three dollars civil rights conspiracy and that's how we briefed it in essence was in accordance with the interpretation of the district court which we deem to be the binding precedent here and so as such as it has been interpreted to be a nine hundred and eighty three dollars civil rights conspiracy because there has to be that constitutional violation we would assert that defining jaeger is in fact intitled to qualified immunity as to that claim and again that constitutional violation then would have to be the existence of a conspiracy if this court wants to say that presenting a memo or maybe having a discussion is an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy well that could him potentially create a chilling effect for all our directors or have the fire marshals interpretation of the requirement of the one year provision was in the applicable here or had been set had not been violated here and there are other part of their theory is that this is all part of this conspiracy having to do with the ouster of the mayor yes as to the fire marshal part of it i would reassert that you know probably did call the fire marshal to see if he was certified they confirm that he was not certified he then asked to speak with some have in the record unfortunately your opponent is shaking his head but it is is that in the record i believe it is your honor i can't point you marshal and that they confirmed before going to the prosecutor correct and then he asked to speak with someone in the legal department of the farm marshal's office as well he asked to speak did he speak he says he did yes inspections were against the law and i believe that that is referenced both in the district court's memorandum opinion and order and the facts section as well as in my brief and with the correct cite to the record believe that this court also was referring to the ouster claims against  i would assert that it's a breach to tie the two together with the mayor and then a building inspector it there is no logical connection between the two in my mind what if people are  gathered that you know there were people who supported one person in the mirror and other people who supported some other person and when the mayor to be ousted in that the theory of your opponent is that gager was doing retaliate against the mayor when there be more relevant more pertinent persons for mr yeager to attack should this have been a specific attack against the mayor's ousters claim or these factual questions that would preclude summary judgment i don't believe so your honor just because i don't believe that the ouster claim is relevant to the conspiracy the conspiracy alleged would be between jaeger district attorney clark and t v i investigate or corbet none of those individuals pertain to the ouster claim and as it stands the conspiracy would be between those three individuals but what is your response to the point supporting punitive damages  promptly earlier in time to ensure you didn't spectrums that were in violation of the law and your overlook some of it or not i don't quite understand the argument but what's your take on this i would say that that's a separate promptly i was say that you know at that time there was still someone of miss company who could conduct the inspections that there was a person there and so they followed what the fire marshal specifically directed i'm not aware of any facts in the record to my knowledge anyways that the fire marshal's office specifically directed mr yeager to do anything besides inform him that these inspections were done without a license and that they were allegedly outside the period thank you thank you