morning morning your honour's my name is mark fluster on the partner of holland a night in chicago and i represent the appellate process happily mr do you know watson no matter how much noise the government has generated in this trial and some of the errors that were merely made by the district court there is one clear fact that is undisputed and that is mr divino watson became a citizen on september seventeenth of two thousand and two and thereafter on may eighth of two thousand and eight the government detained him and and spent one thousand two hundred seventy three days in detention and then seven hundred fifty five more days following that depriving depriving him of his constitutional rights at the time they detained him how would they know he was a citizen because he naturally a naturalized as  automatically on september seventeenth when he was i said how would they know the way they the one and only way they knew would be to apply the law that was a political at the time which was that  when he the last act occurred which was his father becoming naturalized because he was in the custody of his father and he was a minor under the childhood citizen act he automatically automatically not by anything he need to do he didn't need to apply papers he didn't need to do anything the only thing in order to know that they would have to know who his father is an entry tall and that they also have to know when the father naturalized that you know when when  require that yes they are required to conduct and that's part of our negligence claim to conduct a inquiry into what is the the political law at the time at the time he was taken into custody they could citizenship of his father which was given to them they buy him they would have to do an investigation a big one i grant you but they would have to do some investigation to find out that he was the city's six months prior to him being released from the shock incarceration program he was interviewed by the ice agents and that's when the investigation began so they were doing an investigation they did not have to wait three and a half more years to make the determination that he was being wrongfully detained or two and a half more years to term and whether or not they should issue his certificate of citizenship rights came out right around the time that he was detained twenty seven days after twenty seven days after yes he did heinz correct well i mean it's it's funny you say that because the government's position has been clever times too throughout this entire litigation and is in sharp contrast by the way and i encourage you if you read anything in the record to read the government's memo of november twenty fifth two thousand and eleven to the b i a it's the united states is memo it is basically a an explanation as to why he is a citizen and why in the matter of club bar applies and why hines does not apply the other thing you should read if you're going to read anything in the record as you read the internal memos which were generated on november or just prior to november second of two thousand and eleven just prior to him being released from incarceration both those both those memos and internal memoranda are in sharp contrast to the position that the government has taken throughout this entire  litigation because they are basically our memos are basically our breeze as to why he was wrongfully detained and why he was wrongfully denied his certificate of citizenship can i ask a question about the application of heinz  making sure i understand your argument you say that the district court erred by by cutting off your damages in twenty seven days and that they should have said that the fines decision was not sufficient or should realize author the reason oneness of the cast point the reasonableness standard it's not yes it is it isn't whether or not they're acting reasonable it's whether or not the agents or the i j a or the government the government is is one entity here where we can't divide them up and into slices of power i whether or not they know the law and they are correctly applying the law they were not no one had no one in the chain of command the i j a the b i a  anybody and indeed it was a tell you all got involved that this case started to unravel and sort out and that the real truth be known so none of those none of those entities have the ability or even jurisdiction to apply the law as they did against a united states citizen do we even have jurisdiction yes you extend then your mission have jurisdiction no you do have jurisdiction over this f t c a matter if if we if we were to find that the that the plaintiff's false and imprisonment claim accrues on the date that his detention was first subject to legal immigration courts there is no probable cause hearing is just that an agent size a says i think this guy is subject to remove all and no judicial officer reviews that and so they're automatically detained but will said that there was no meaningful probable cause hearing because the judge relied on false information because the police officers lied to the court and lied in their affidavit and so there could not so so there was no legal process and so it that manuel also the statue of limitations didn't begin until the release our theory in this case judge weinstein got it sort of half right and half wrong but our theory in this case is the statute of limitations should either begin to run on november second precisely there is none is known for two reasons one is that the court never had jurisdiction over united states citizen so it could be either you or i standing there then you really assuming the result you're you're  saying any proceeding ever begins because you're assuming the result no i when it started they didn't know whether he was a citizen or not on the objective standard they should have known yes he was a citizen and they should have known that and they can't pretend like the law and that's what the government has done in this case was so complicated that they're that they're forgiven for not knowing who are they are expected under general object except that theory that you articulated that since he was a citizen and never could have been any immigration proceedings you would agree that the that there are and longs to to arraignment or night and yes but not in the immigration  which is signed by not not by lawyers lawyers or functionaries not case are initiated and signed by the proceedings or initiate and signed by agents ice agents and there is no judicial review of that at all so an agent will look at a file in this case they looked at the wrong files and mistaken files because there is no analog there is no when and how to arraignment is now would be the i mean if if you're i mean i'm a criminal guy too i was with the department for many years and and if you are trying to stretch although i don't think it is it is perfectly analogous it would be the date of the first appearance before the day before the  determine whether or not someone is a citizen let me ask you this you know overcoming for a moment your doubts as to whether there's any jurisdiction at all why would we choose the june twenty fifth date as opposed to let's say  the november thirteenth day november thirteenth day here's an actual decision concerning citizenship the june twenty fifth date is the date of the first appearance but nothing thirteenth day that's the date of the i j a decision two thousand and eight right yeah yeah and then it you know it continues on to the date of the first you know when the lawyer first comes in and is appointed later on because of action so what's the what's the question my question is which are those day just to get bring you back to an earlier question which of those days makes the most sense if we were to say that we had i think if the question goes to when should the statute of limitations begin i think it is either and as i said in both of those are within the statute of filing our november treat interpretational was to do that i would think it would either be the filing of the n t a or the first appearance before the i j j neither of which are applicable in this situation let me ask you if i could go back to the damages your eyes and sort of following up from judge jacobs questions you know here the district court says the plaintiff was entitled to two thousand per day for loss of liberty five hundred per day for emotional damages but if you look at our case file that seems quite high doesn't it i mean if you look at prior awards in new york state at least provided you know that the warrants that the government is as good as provided to us it seems more in the range of one hundred dollars to two hundred  fifty dollars per day of false imprisonment and the federal law caps damages for wrongful conviction and correct me if i'm wrong fifty thousand dollars for a twelve month period for plaintiffs with nine capitols s the government she heart was completely skewed if the numbers are in fact judge weinstein was really on the low middle end of what the numbers are there is case law throughout the country on u nconstitutional incarceration and going back as far as the mid ninety's without adjustment for inflation it was something in excess of a million dollars for every year of that was approximately fifteen months after your client's release that before there was an active and six hundred application and that he received this was his certificate after filing please note number one my colleague sitting to my left here with the national good justice center was involved in that time they filed a this is another noise by the government they filed a petition to for fee waiver and that was properly granted so that that is not an issue that he applied twice while he was detained for a certificate for his and six hundred which was denied then mr fleming from the national has a duty to to and that's the negligence has a duty to issue the certificate up on all the requirements being met which it new and that's why i'm asking you to look at the memos from november of two thousand and two thousand and eight which shows that u s cia as an all agencies knew that that he was a citizen of the time so it is not a failure to investigate or negligent investigation it sins if as you point out he was a citizen from two thousand and two he was a child how when he adjusted he was seventeen and he was born in eighty four so however old he was in this morning first why plaintiff false imprisonment claim is time board second why plaintiff's false imprisonment claim is not subject to equable tolling and finally why in the alternative the district courts did not clearly are limiting plaintiff's damages the first off when watson was initially interviewed by the ice by the ice officer eric and from watson told the correct names and contact information for his father and stepmother also said that he was a citizen why didn't andrea ensure contact with them before making a determination about watson's citizenship in the files for the individuals and when identified as watson's parents were clearly incorrect clearly incorrect those individuals had different names a male was unmarried and the female attained her married and watson from a deceased ex husband i'm at a loss to understand how the government and how the how ice proceeded in this case given what watson had told  him from the start that would have i think certainly would have just easily could've avoided a lot of what's what's what's what's problematic in this case the government did indeed obtain the file for the wrong hoped in watson from jamaica in the beginning of this case to file for clara watson is ultimately irrelevant because any derivative citizenship is only based on the plaintiff's relationship the hope in watch and obviously the first action to take if there were doubts about watson sedition ship it seems like it's the stuff that was the most obvious thing to do wasn't done and i'm trying to understand why well there's no evidence in the record as to whether down to jamaica signed it seven years later and that investigation was uncovered during the course of his removal proceedings the government had an obligation here considering that the plaintiff was convicted of two serious  a certificate of citizenship it would have been granted to correct not necessarily because he still needed to meet the pre requisites under eleven c and fourteen thirty one assuming that i mean there would be nothing in jamaica law that would rely entirely on a phone number that somebody gives you if somebody wants to be a bank teller and says you know he has the phone number of my former employer call up and the sister answers the phone but not to make the call in the first place when you say this is this is my father and this is the link that i have to to legitimation and to citizenship seems very odd and i'm seeing a record in ticking they even call that number that's correct there is nothing in the record as to whether inflicted wound by the government they could have just easily dealt with this case he wouldn't be here just by simply checking at the outset as to whether you know who the father was whether there was anything there's no dispute about the wrong file but hine still acts as a intervening break in the chain of causation and ultimately the government is not responsible for following the legal precedent the issue is whether it's a break in the chain of causation whether it constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that might conceivably justify a taunt and whether it does or doesn't but you have to admit this is no way to run an ad well your honor we would note that there's no evidence in the record t deplane it was so preoccupied with his removal proceedings that he was not able to then file an administrative claims and he was all that was actually the same same investigation the same gathering of documents the same testimony that he would use to establish the citizenship as well right and he also had gibson done attorneys helping him and it took years after the gibson dunn attorneys were involved to ultimately to file any administrative claim and proceedings i'm sorry he just wouldn't last i don't think so because i think the court case would have been stayed pending the outcome of his immigration proceedings i don't think he just gets a free pass to just wait until everything is res har hynes did nothing nothing didn't even address or did nothing to and could not the b a a could not in a decision affect the vested citizenship the other thing about the the agents when they were conducting their investigation and got the wrong files is that there were specific ice directives four of which were issued during his detention one of which was issued only days after his initial detention which said if there there is a claim of citizenship for a detained individual that there's these specific procedures need to be followed within twenty four hours twenty four hours had they done that we duty to abide by regulations if there is a if there's a duty to it to abide by their own internal internal procedures and they fail to do that there is an analogue for that eleventh grade educated young man in july two months after he had been detained which he ultimately was detained for three more years he produced his father's search if you get of citizenship they put that in the file they did nothing as a result of that that is just complete negligence and because they thought somebody else was his father because they had the other hoped and they should once they saw his correct certificate a citizen of venice correct name would would have been a pretty good clue that they had were relying on the wrong file they did nothing to investigate that are correct that or make the phone call as you pointed out again i encourage you to read the memo the b i r the the government filed with the b i november of two thousand and eleven and the internal memos that led up to the to the defense are the plaintiff i'm sorry the plaintiffs release their very telling about the government's position in this case and they're completely inconsistent with the position the government is currently taking on the continuing emotional damages issue of judge weinstein concluded that your client was not a credible witness that there were many dishonesties in his testimony was in that regard that he talked about how clever mr watson was why should we what was clearly erroneous about the district court's findings and in regard to continuing emotional damages because there is a difference between i'm not sure what was going on with judge one scene when it came to that  that part of the case it came sort of out of the blue out of nowhere but we did not file for damages for loss of income subsequent to being released the witnesses both the government witness and our witness expert witnesses all agreed that there were continuing emotional damages that he was depressed based on as it is incarceration judge weinstein found that there could not and the experts even said this that if it's if it's confined to twenty seven days we can't find that his depression that is happening subsequent to his incarceration is based on what happened in the first twenty seven days that that sort of the house of cards falls apart based on this artificial  the judge weinstein found so but the three witnesses his family members and the two expert witnesses all found that he had found testified to his depression his moods his hit the trouble he was having adjusting to post incarceration the trauma he was having by the fact that he didn't have a certificate of sort of certificate of citizenship and that he was still subject to remove all and he didn't know how would anyone know which cost ration you put him on a new track he was ready to get going he wanted to contribute it shot right exactly it it shocked it worked and finally and i won't be labor this that  a month later and so there was only one allegation of false imprisonment and that started on may eighth it goes all the way through we can't say that that each day of incarceration is a separate is a separate tort the  found him to be totally not credible that he didn't start using cocaine until after hours of release from ice attention he's actually been convicted of attempted sale of cocaine in two thousand and seven yes and he lied your honor about whether he pled guilty to certain crimes he lied about his drug history and about other issues related to his criminal background and as the court noted the plaintiff has been in custody previously  argument the law that's in effect refers to the statute not the case law there there's no support for that by the plaintiffs it's the statute that's at issue and with respect to the negligent  duty to abide by private regulations the plaintiff refers to a variety of names for his negligence claim but ultimately it's rooted in this failure to comply with if there was an investigation cl