apologize i'd like to begin with the third issue we briefed which is our claim that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice and his decision the judge concluded in this is that the appendix one thirty six th because the plaintiff had already amended the complaint this once after and and after two attempts had failed to state a claim therefore produce dismissal with prejudice was warranted i don't need to remind the court that fifteen gives liberal leave to grant amendments in the interest of justice and if you look at the two complaints they're both wrong i call this complaint the dark side of it ball no one's ever going to accuse the drafter of the complainant not pleading sufficient facts may be too many and maybe this story got lost in the week but if you look at all two hundred thirty six paragraphs of the complaint they're all identical both complaints were filed there the first and second docket entry both were filed on february tenth two thousand and sixteen the only difference and i'm not saying the only material difference i'm saying the only difference between the two complaints is in the caption or subheading count five identifying the parties i was not served but i could have easily made the error i don't want to blame somebody else somehow take responsibility for my file but i think what happened is and that was to ed t d bank in the second complaint and if you look at the complaint it's well played t d bank is listed as a party there i think somebody looked at that post filing and said well there's going to be a claim there amend that's the only amendment and so you know for the start in cases where i've had pleading difficulties the practice in the district of connecticut at least has been to dismiss with without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint within some period if there is something that i could conceivably correct now our adversaries take the position in briefing here that even if the we were given permission to amend we would have failed i'm not sure that's right and i'll turn now to the first and second count because i think the district court got it wrong on the merits pleading i'd probably cut it in half for example you've noticed a tremendous amount of language about the state department of education and various credentialing issues there is a separate and distinct state court action there and i'm not involved in that but every view pleadings in anticipation of this argument and it appears to me that counsel me and thrown the kitchen sink in here and would have been yes as to the state department of education it's pending in state court it's only state statutory claims but i think what got lost in the weeds here were the following and these were factors that the district court did not address in its motion and i've got  seven and seventy eight of the complaint to the joint appendix beginning at seventy one also there was a claim made that certain monies were spent when she wasn't on school premises deleted from the court's analysis is the fact that she was a summer coordinator during a relevant time period that's a paragraph seventy nine joined appendix seventy two there were claims that various personal items could not conceivably be used for school expenses such as kitty litter could cook books and  magazines however as the complaint made clear those were never repaid for with school funds those were personal funds that's in paragraph eighty one a joint appendix seventy two but perhaps most shocking of all is the contention that she somehow relevant material to that and we keep out propensity evidence on the grounds that it might be it might lower the threshold of proof for the movement if you think poorly of a person in other regards you'll think poor in all regards we found fault with the district court analysis here for not identifying the elements of larceny under connecticut general statute fifty three one twenty three and the principal reason for that was one of the perks one of the purposes of it one of the elements is the intent permanently to deprive a person of use she gave an explanation and it's in the warrant and you see the district court in my adversary referred to it that she'd made a mistake with respect to the school the car funds the checkbooks were the same she and then there's a suggestion she may have tried to bribe somebody to change her story and i don't know what to do with that i'll take that on the face of the pleading but then with respect to some of the other the television in the camera she said she heard sure her son had it at home teaching her how to use it now the trial court and i think my adversary said well those are kind of rich but are those claims diminished because ever there were a sham entity that's it but absent from the district court decision legally well but it came down to the same thing that it had no legal status and therefore could not be willing to do bona fide recipient of legitimate funds but from the district court's decision is any discussion of the use of school activity funds and this isn't paragraphs one twenty eight through one thirty of the complaint the joint appendix in eighty one this was a small district and other districts took similar monies put them through their school activity funds she used the p t o this was and she was not running a rogue corporation or entity to enrich yourself and so we don't see any of that in the district court analysis and we think that had it been included in that analysis that there would be a different outcome on the question of an amendment if i were given the opportunity to amend that bring it in at less than one hundred paragraphs i'd probably leave one hundred twenty six on the cutting room floor and focus on what was significant what we argued here if i may just make one more statement as to the malicious prosecution counts as to the individual defendants that sounds entirely in their awareness of the school activity fund and they're claiming that the p t o was a bogus organization so we think there is enough to that judge bolton and viewed in terms of his determination in this case there could be nothing added in an amendment that would change the material facts which the court had before it and which the magistrate judge had before him when the affidavit was submitted for the arrest warrant now the fact that we have a situation here and we get to probable cause that  failure of probable cause is a failure of both claims for false arrest and for malicious prosecution judge bolden pointed out rightfully so that we're you have an arrest warrant signed by a neutral magistrate then the presumption is that there was probable cause and it would take a showing by the plaintiff in this particular case that there reflects is that the plaintive stablish some organization known as the hopeful school p t o we have no idea what legal entity it was was it a partnership was it a corporation w what is any well it's more than one person and in this case it was only miss mothra and that's undisputed she she controlled the funds she was assaulted signatory on the account come from the funds the funds came from p t o org well from organizational activities that were held at the school that's my understanding they came from and also that the record will reflect that she was given a certain amount of money i believe it was fifty cents per person from the school district for certain activities at her school that she comingled with funds under the p t o account  which she should have and the record of she should have taken that money that she was given from the city and used it for functions as a principle of the school instead she called mango that with the funds for the p t o so in  this particular situation what she did is she took an account with her as the sole signatory use those funds and as judge ball them pointed out and as far as undisputed facts are concerned there's no question that she bought the t v and kept it at her house there's no question i'm sorry that the record doesn't reflect how long she had it we only know that she returned it after the investigation began with with a excuse that it was being held at our home so that our son could train her in the use of that particular television set and the affidavit points out that the  department at the city trains people so that they were basically was no need for her to take a piece of equipment not belonging to her take it to her home and use it a stance of lee to be trained by her son yes  they were either in the complaint themselves or in documents of which the plaintive had participated in the creation of those documents as as part of the record they were i'm trying to think offhand  sorry part of the motion to dismiss your honor they were submitted as part of the motion to dismiss the judge bolton had before him why were they not outside of the plea because they were documents fact that if the plaintiff has been a participant in certain undisputed documents or there next to the complaint that that can be used in a motion to dismiss and that was what was done here i believe that the record will reflect that in the motions that were filed and to the consideration of those documents no sir there was not so our our position simply is the judge judge baldwin clearly had a a set of undisputed facts upon which he concluded that there was a fish and probable cause for the issuance of the arrest well first of all the police officers are separate from the board of education employees teachers principal it cetera but judge bolton didn't rely on any of that information in his decision he's very clear that he relies on undisputed facts and those issues with regard to allege false what is being communicated from the education people to the police people were not considered by judge paul and when he made th determination that there was probable cause here so in terms of plaintiff's argument about the corrective affidavit document those so called faustian false notes were not part of judge bolton's analysis and it's clear from his decision that he relied on a set of undisputed facts which specifically related to the the conduct of mr maule for of with regard to the use of this account the payments that she made out of that account and the suspicions that one would reasonably infer from conduct that miss malta of engaged in such as writing a check for repairs for her personal car and then after the check bounced saying well i i made it from the wrong account and then going in there's an affidavit that was filed by an individual who was at the car dealership at that particular point in time where mismo through went in to try to convince them that they were aware that she had written it incorrect jack and the affidavit of that person facts in concluding that there was probable cause for the arrest in this case two dollar bills in the afternoon yes  so in conclusion i know as my time is running out in conclusion we feel that judge judge bolden was was totally correct in having concluded that there was sufficient probable cause for the rest of the small throw and therefore there would be no cause of action for false arrest or for malicious prosecution and as i indicated initially the amendment of the complaint would not change the material facts of which judge bolden relied so no matter what counsel would do in terms of streamlining it or whatever that doesn't add any facts to it all that does is make a lengthy complaint shorter it doesn't do anything to say here's a material fact that i can now plea that i couldn't plead at the time that this motion to dismiss was granted no such proposition has been offered by the plaintiff in this case thank you  i don't need to remind this court that there's a legally significant difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause just how to parse that line i think is difficult on an applied basis but we find fault with the district courts analysis because of what it what my but i think in her view there were things she had seen in days of evidence and things she knew and there was no point in disputing and so there's a little bit more before the court here than there might be and there was no objection to the court considering that but given what the court if it did it did so dormant way and i think my adversaries argument is it comes out to the same thing but i don't think it did i don't think it did explicitly by saying look these are the false hoods and when i consider the falsity against the things  which there is no dispute there are questions in my mind about what you mean by do i meant unstated in other words i don't i don't recall in the court's decision i'm going to apply this analysis and these are the checklists and so forth so if i where i was thrilled to see him you know but he's talking about co mingling funds i'm thinking of trust funds we're trying to fifty cents on the students head and bake sale money in a p t o at a principal in a local school what's the nature of the legal entity this was a pass through and the board employees knew and this was the entity that her school activity funds went through and what they did was they played ball with the police officers this is an incorporated one of the officers do they went online to check what a p t o is rather than asking people who should know so you know are there mixed questions of law in fact here we think there are we think the case is jury worthy or in the alternative at least discovery already all accept the challenge mr man got she lays down he says are there additional facts that you can put in there i don't know i haven't had discovery give me discovery and we'll see thank you thank you