performance where the justice network had been in craig had county since the late ninety's providing those services to individual criminal defendants they provided those services there had been an understanding with the craighead county judicial system that would become just the standard that if you were required to have probation services they were going to be provided by this into t two which you don't freeze my understanding are as it was a course of over twenty years that they are just the probation the terminations of probation are essential judicial functions that are not decisions that are going to be made into these other than courts why wouldn't that be something that would be in that probation service provider in an individual defendant that's what we had that there were there were fees that were owed what the what the judges did was abrogate cancel nullify those contracts so could you help me out with specifically how that opinion finding these contracts void what specifically was was filed or where the judges do that we can take a look at or that you can describe thank you and just your point before that there's no finding i believe it actually goes to another one of the primary issues here the justice network wasn't part of any litigation where any proceeding where these contracts were notified my understanding your honor of the process practically the way it happened there was an announcement an amnesty day and all defendants would come into the court they would they would advise the court that they're looking for for resetting of their payment plans and the like what then would happen at the clerk would go into his his or her computer and indicate let's say there were  maintain that this point remedies that law against any of those for which you contract the answer to that question or is that the practical impact of the court nullifying zeroing out that that that payment owed to justice network the practical impact i they were asked to leave and they are no longer present in korea can be they are no longer those contracts that they've that they invested time effort money they spent services they spent money to their employees all of that that's that they can no longer collect on that you have  agree with that but the point here isn't how it began and ended up if you have twenty years of conduct and you have contracts between services provider and a criminal defendant and there's hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more over to justice network that they can no longer recoup but i believe in those counties there are individual as contracts between the justice network and the counties that's why this case is somewhat different but my understanding also is that that the specific conduct we're complaining here it's just it's limited to my name is robert james and i represent the co affably in this case dr david judge david bolling and judge tommy bauer in this case my clients  this court should affirm the district court's order dismissing all of justice network's claims because my clients or entitle to absolute judicial in unity after judge bowen and judge fowler sentence  or discharge that person for probation at any time they act within their judicial authority in presiding over court and deliberate deliberating over cases as part of this function they may amend the court orders they may act within their judicial capacity when they suspend and modify or terminate the terms of the probation they may impose additional conditions and extend postpone do you agree that are they pushing your comments on whether you think through the distinction between what's been described as cancelling fee and whether how that relates to whether or not the contracts  for the contracts were not void added by the court the judges just took these cases over in an amnesty program the amnesty program would be they would allow these defendants to come into justice network from recovering fees well just the contract that's if there is a contract if it is between justice network and the probation or and for a just this network still has that contract between them in the the government the city any four x a requirement in the probation fees are for the why and the consequence to justice in that list is they don't they can't get it through the normal channel they have aware of that and there is nothing in the record that concern the all these acts are judicial and i and because they relate to general functions normally performed by my clients of these are not administrative acts judge bowen and judge fowler have an absolute immunity when performing at least judicial functions and a function normally is a function normally performed by a judge this is in the mirror l it was cited in our brief the judge will not deprive will not be deprived of immediately because the action he took was in error was done maliciously or in excess of his authority rather he will be subject to a bill if he only when he acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction the arkansas constitution provides that the district courts are have authority over misdemeanors and they have the jurisdiction which the district court was correct when it relied on that statute for a during a period of probation of court might modify a condition imposed by the defendant and the judges may also impose additional conditions or conditions such as a drug testing on your management in any community service any other services that may be part of the progression sixteen seventeen twenty twenty seven years my clients the authority over probation and may order an individual to probation services with the probation fees and cost incentives same as well the judges may terminate probation your honor as to how times are there and other questions and see ok this court should firm a district court's order dismissing all of justice network's claims because simply has no judicial authority or no power at all in regulating what the judges do whether it be a judicial act which we agree with that it is absolutely judicial act when you're deciding probation and repayment of probation fees and whatnot  so we absolutely agree with that so you just have no control and what the judges do it all and so the cities pay cities and counties pay fifty percent of the salary that's it and carter versus  cash the state court case makes it clear that paying the salaries alone is not dispositive of the issue and on the plaintiff site that late country case i think if i'm quoting them correctly in their briefs that paying the salaries is dispositive as no where in that case that supreme court has nothing to do with the issues or for the court right now carter versus cash which says that salaries alone don't salaries may be an element of it but control is the ultimate element of whether a city has a current employee  has any control over an employee or the employee exists at all and they're simply they're simply not employees of the city even if they were employees of the city there's no allegation and no evidence or no allegation made in applying really substantive that the judges  case that meant the judge is the policy maker we have no control over what we what the judge doesn't probationers so wow if if the city did have control and then gave all that control to or power to the judge perhaps of that that would make them a to your question of my co counsel regarding what justice network has done to collect these on these contracts that's a primary question be can't collect on these contracts if they did it would be sanctionable conduct they'd be subject to eleven sanctions your honor because these establishing a minute he is on the move and on the party trying to establish that immunity which in this case would be the county in the city as they haven't done that because they haven't presented any proof in their motions to dismiss what the source of funding for that war would be that in itself your i think it's important to look at this little bit more carefully twelve twenty seven one twenty four and twelve twenty seven one thirty four specifically indicate that the department of community corrections in cooperation with the circuit courts not the district cour those entities are charged with the responsibility of retaining replacing or hiring probation services providers in a motion to dismiss the defendants failed to address how the unilateral decision of judges bowling and judge judge's ruling in a feller to replace a just network and to cancel these fees how that complies with the statutory requirement of twelve twenty seven one twenty four twelve twenty seven one thirty four where was the partner of corrections community corrections in this whole scheme what we have here is we have two judges who ran on a platform to remove the justice network from cricket county they were successful in their in their election campaigns and they wanted to remove them but the involvement of these other entities the circuit court the department of community corrections that's all absent from their motions your honor and in our in our