did you have any are you finished yet or question that's all i have for now ok it's so much of this case depends upon whether well the entire case depends upon whether under michigan law the magistrate was duly appointed or had authority to act why shouldn't we certify the question to the very identical factual circumstance had already worked its way through the court system including your honor the federal district court in the eastern district of michigan approximately eighteen years magistrate must be properly approved by the county board of commissioners and the mere fact that the county board of commissioners appropriated funding for the position does not itself ratify or approve that appointment  in federal trial court sad that the fact that the county board of commissioners appropriated funded for the business and somehow constitutes appropriate approval for that appointment when that is clearly contrary to  ogy that we can draw is if united states congress appropriates funding for a new rope a district court seat at a president nominates somebody for that seat the mere fact that the congress appropriated funding does not constitute approval of that specific appointment that appointment must be specifically approved by the senate and here the michigan statutory provision of law relative to the appointment of magistrates mirror especially but it's required under federal constitutional law for apartment a federal judge just that is that the mere appropriation of funding is not sufficient there must be approval of the county board of commissioners of the specific appointment each and every individual who was at one time appropriate judicial officer i be tired judge signed up and they said that retired judge didn't even have the authority to do it because he was not properly appointed did not have judicial authority issue boards at that time compensation for an individual to be subjected to the intrusive process of a needle being injected into his arm for the extraction of his nut and conduct a forensic analysis of the disqualifications that you're waiting you would say he just wasn't qualified to do it that's what you seem to be complaining about well you would have been properly authorized and you wouldn't have any claim at all and that's where on struggling to understand your argument the statute requires and there's no evidence that he wouldn't have been they just didn't follow the proper procedures you wouldn't have had a complaint at all about what the magistrate that's not what i'm suggesting at all i just referenced that as one of the potential issues it is ultimately up to the county board or commission commission norrish to review and determine the propriety of the appointment of that particular public were the federal court cases and i cited you're right or an off the top of my head i don't have to be a specific michigan cite other than what might be contained in my brief i'm not prepared to identify what this moment  problem and then when we provided all of that in our brief and referenced the record where those life budgets are attached below i think the problem in this case of some confusion between the approval required and i think that  would like to advocate that it requires like a board resolution and there's there's no suggestion of the statute that that's required and in fact there are a number of expenditures that the county approves of by budgetary line item of the various magistrates yes and so so really there's no there's no need to certify this to the michigan supreme court because it's clear that the statute was complied with and that's also there that's just case about forces nearing the factual situation is completely different and the problem that exists in enduring the not exists in this case where would we find in the record that the line item approved budgeting approval s specified the individuals who were being budget were being funded was approved your honor i believe there at exhibit nine to our motion st motion to dismiss which i believe was record entry six in the lower exhibit seven and nine why are we looking at evidence or immaterial son of motion to dismiss well you know i think that's a good point your honor but that's something that was never  disputed in the lower court there were documents that were there was evidence provided by both sides as there was never any kind of objection to that in the lower court yet i think it's sort of late now because you know to consider appointed state judges are elected so there have to be that that consideration when you're when you're engaging in an executive branch appointing and the legislature have a say that this is this is a completely different issue here it's pretty clear that judges in michigan are allowed to point their own personnel to do we have all duties of the court and we cited case one our br that supports that and that's kind of getting into the separation of powers issue but i just wanted to mention that it's really not a of a proper analogy and i do want to address the race judicata argument and hackett by have to be a conviction that when you give your plea you're you're admitting to a number of issues that address the warrant it just has to comb any and a final judgment and the decision which precludes the benefits which could have been raised in the prior state court matter but were not so precludes raising them in the federal court matter if you could have raised some of the sacred matter now most certainly plaintif it precluded the federal playing so there are a lot of cases from michigan where they do apply this crossover they call a crossover profusion from state to federal cases and it's applied even in a context if there's probable cause finding  district court proceeding as long as there was some sort of like fall off information given by officers it certainly does for fluids of the party for bringing federal state court matter arising from the same situation that gave th space exactly on that so the prosecutor you know would have been aware of that and i'm sure that was you know that could have been part of why they offered him the plea that they offered him i don't know so doesn't make any difference with regard to the requirement that federal court to review it or or undo it or i mean that this sort of dovetails into the hack versus humphrey argument to where essentially what they're doing is they're saying there was no basis to issue the warrant for the warrants and valet and then what's a case without of little jewel and i'm not saying that you can your honor but in this case that was the primary evidence that they were using to prosecute him this is a person who's got a long history  of drinking and driving nine convictions for suspended i mean you know it's that's the primary evidence that they were lying it was the blood alcohol level and that's why we feel that the h free barrier should also apply in this case and then with respect to i know there was some discussion privity that i wanted to just raise an issue a dare versus michigan also does a really good job of transactional approach and that's a much broader net that that covers a lot more claims and i could just if i feel indulge me for just a moment  transaction regardless of the number of substantive theories or variant forms of relief flowing from the series that may be available to the plaintiff and regardless of the variations in the evidence needed to support the theory or right so we're not really i counsel argued in the briefs that there's different evidence that you would need in order to support the criminal case as opposed to the federal case now but under the transactional approach michigan applies which this court is required to apply is it would encompass  commissioners that the doesn't require resolution that what form of approval does satisfy the statutory mandate just as courts speak through their orders legislative bodies speak through their approve these appointments by rush of motion of the county board of commissioners which itself seems to be a concession on their part that county board of commissioners resolution is necessary so as the subsequent her legal measure i'm i s c for sixty two us supreme court freo six there that was a criminally accused individual who pled guilty in a state court proceeding he was sentenced he subsequently that the mere fact that there was a state court conviction of the individual on the underlying criminal charges not preclude him from bringing a th amendment claim under section one hundred and eighty three and that is the most