had done for me in another case in that case judge francesca connelly had had completely ignored my cross motion for summary judgment because she claimed i never filed a forty five dollars filing fee which was absolute chris because it was a paper case and how did she get those documents but i went to the nd department i explained that and so what they did is they took my cross motion they went to the exhibit very wonderful of them and they actually ruled it was lack of informed consent and they breathed life into that lowered the lower ones were never even looked at or addressed the federal ones unlawful not not with accuracy and i'm asking a one hundred thousand dollars for each of the causes of action and to omission is on acceptable behavior the graph i'm in this case rests on whether the protective wars which were based on a bogus ring and run i never rang someone's doorbell and ran i don't do such thing but the violation of protective order two counts for my assistant sending two motions to jane m and on the same day somehow wound up as two violations of protective order suddenly i find myself facing twelve years in prison and my argument to judge crowd to detective class the did pendant was the protective order had expired your own police agency had administratively closed the case and then it was reopened a bogus protective order issue but is long since expired and my assistant did send court documents to join them and because that's what he's required by statute to do seventeen canet general statutes so i said to him i don't bring my assistant and i will bring one of my paperwork to procreate but i think next morning that will be that thirty three to four in the afternoon i think next morning michael dealing tend to listen former state's attorneys a good friend jane edmonson her husband had already issued an arrest warrant i was never given the opportunity to prove my innocen across a motion for summary judgment must be heard on the merits i have fought so hard in this matter and experienced so much suffering because of the actions of one woman who  belize town of woodbridge robert b crowther and frank p cappiello the district court did not earn granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment as a properly considered all admissible evidence before it in weighing the merits of playing this claims and properly considered and dispose of all causes of x and so forth by the point plaintiff's claims that her evidence and argument were ignored is without merit judge hall viewed all the facts in the l the defendant out admitted when they were not properly refuted by the plaintiff under the same local rule plaintiff's brief and the end of her argument here today is clear that this case is all about her obsession with nonparty and as with her pleading in the district court plaintiff's brief in reply i focus heavily on the alleged conduct of drug germans not the purported conduct of the defendant and that conduct of judge m and the plaintiff complained about the defendant and simply claiming that these defendants were doing emmons bidding without further factual unhandsome their support in the record is insufficient for plaintiff to prevail on her claims and just to address more denied as moot as the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and its entirety as the thirteen cause of action plaintiff sets them forth in her brief and in ours we go through and explain how each of those thirteen cause of action not constitute a favorable terminations such that those charges proceed against her and that cannot form the basis of a false arrest or malicious prosecution claim additionally as judge called forth in her well reasoned opinion there was ample probable cause for plaintiff's arrest on the charges and she didn't even reach the question of qualified immunity which we had realized as wasn't necessary given the ample probable cause talking the protective order against me and resume prosecution of me for a case already administratively closed i was a st time than director in my mid fifty's a teacher she was politically motivated she may or may not have a mental did it's on the record in the police report i can't be held responsible for judge who lies on the record who refuses to see the evidence right in front of her face and