pio i think that's where i'm going i'm not sure because it might make a difference but i don't think you ever said i saw narcotics changing hands before the money exchange and they think there was a prior exchange or something that i think  so i think what you said this is exactly right but i think what you are suggesting maybe is that the influencers because exchange took place before they that he did ask for drugs he was provided with drugs for this woman and gave them our twenty dollar bill and she immediately goes over hands with rovers and if that isn't enough for probable cause and we'll all go home but if we do falsified the ever several as i remember it was a child molestation case and they were working the investigation and they were trying to manufacture it with this guy just where they were trying to get other people third parties to come up with the evidence this guy just we don't have anything at all the government as far as i can tell us can see that if your facts are some reject they conceded your facts one hundred percent throw him out throw out the the the unlawful manufacturing evidence where you have well you know it's a hand him the money and mark the one up in his pocket that you don't think that's the most probable cause last year i can't for the simple fact that there is no it's not a crime in california to accept money from somebody it i say sensible things and so so you really if we don't buy into your argument of a probable cause you are stuck congress whereas the prosecutor would not have if probable cause existed so you've got to go back to whether probable cause to make the arrest and even if the facts were as if the plaintiff's alleged you know states them as their beer and have probable cause to for sal and intent to sell on is often proved by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be made on that circumstantial evidence the circumstantial evidence here match it basically this is just nothing different from if your beard went into a difference between them and you may be entirely justified in treating it as equivalent but of these it's worth noting that the are not exactly the same that you have to make that leap strong enough judgment and i actually from what i remember of reading hartmann last night was that they ask yourself the prosecutor still have prosecutor on the facts minus my mind is that the best stuff and walks like a duck it sounds like a duck so it's got to be a duck probable car crash because they did made it the government admitted all those facts and just forgot about it so unless you can tell me where the one thousand nine hundred three constitutional action is for falsifying a report with malicious prosecutions in ninety three contacts there was clearly evidence about what the prosecutor knew and in fact actually yes there were there are many cases where the prosecutor was deposed i could actually give the court one which is another new back to some attacks i mean if you if you've got a case make the case if you don't have a case that it has nothing to do with who you depose or what's in the records you don't put it in the record it could be many things you could put in the record but who had knowledge about what went where the report when there's nothing in this record it's north from the port from dallas pyrrhic or and it's something the budget that the court that this particular district court has dealt with a million times we wouldn't be in the court for