in a good lawyer from his mental health provider and the question is whether that is is is the quid for the quo or whatever but correct so there are a lot of questions and a lot of where he says line paragraph twelve at the very top he says i was under the impression that my charges would be dismissed completely if i showed proof of mental health treatment why doesn't that qualify that the criminal defendant was going to provide something and he it was truly his impression that's what he says but my impression was that my charges would be dismissed completely if i should prove and on the other side we've got the government saying that was our understanding as well me an impression understanding maybe if you want to hang your hat on that distinction then let me know but it seems to be some understanding on the part of both sides that there is  we will not the government will not only in exchange for proof of mental health this however there is no agreement as to what sort of mental health treatment  undergo the terms of the treatment how often he was supposed to receive it or whether the previous mental health treatment he had been receiving since adolescence could form the basis for this latter what we have on the r for any mental health treatment just provide us with proof of that and then will knowledge it could be but that's not what happened here so under connecticut i think that when there are these disputes of material fact as to the circumstances surrounding the night entry like there are here there is nothing in the record that indicates the sort of mental health treatment mr governs here but it seems to me that there's actually that's not the layout that made it appears to be there seems to be some tension in the nd circuit all about whether this is a state law issue we defer to the state or whether this is a federal common its distinct elements from false arrests and even now district courts that have been looking  cases those courts have still been undertaking the analysis of whether or not he was entered in exchange for the criminal defendant providing something of  doesn't matter but i'm trying to figure out which they're doing correct and i believe they are considering both planning and i can't bring to exactly how they're analyzing but failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether or not the criminal charges underlying his th amendment false arrest playing were terminated in his favor that roche the i don't like i don't think anybody disagrees that favorable terminations is an l now is that decided under connecticut law or is that decided as a matter of federal common law you know it probably doesn't matter i don't know if there's one way to assess whether there was a from affirmative up evidence of actual innocence is whether it was or in exchange for something you know there are any number of motivations that the government was an arrangement made based upon the court transcripts of the january two thousand six hundred and twenty seven hearing it reveals the state made an offer hunkies the door was represented by his public defender attorney compliance based upon and the agreement which is his performance exactly six months later he shows up in court on july th two thousand and seventeen with this counsel and the prosecutor reports that this matter was diverted in order for every defendant to bring some proof of treatment he has done treatment during the six month diversionary period and based on not the an arrangement because part frankly mr o'keefe stood or wasn't required to do anything to go to trial and the fact that he did so when he was not required indicates that there was an not the dismissal resulted from an arrangement and you're a sure statute of connecticut actually supports our position because he has once a case app which provides the defendant who is being sued under a for false arrest isn't hired to seek a court order from the criminal court or a disclosure of the underlying file and that's exactly what we did here we received a court order and we were able to shop at the underlying arrangement was as is reflected in the record for this court so there is no question there is a deal the argument that we don't know about i would just like to highlight that my adversary has conceded that the record is not clear about why if anything was agreed to hear enter and as the party moving for summary judgment the burden was on that  additionally in order for anomaly to not constitute a favorable terminations there needs to be an agreement between the state and the criminal defendant where the criminal defendant provides something of benefit to simply providing a letter that confirms he's already been receiving mental health treatment is not providing that and if it was not a benefit to the state with the bennett wouldn't the state benefit from knowing that somebody who is in the context of conduct that might be criminal he in fact received even beyond that that he is continuing to receive mental health treatment isn't that a benefit to the state it's not clear that that was what was agreed to in exchange for the not he merely continue your client understands that he needs to do something in order to get this charge dismiss knowledge isn't that clear from the wrecker it's not clear what he underst