affirm on any grounds that's made up by the record whether the judge went that way or not i don't think even on this record perhaps you could but the court should not and denying the motion to dismiss on the grounds of absolute immunity the magi depending on who does what from what but the absolute immunity as i understand it focuses on the conduct of the church and in a doing what law the motion to dismiss correctly saw that the judge's conduct and engaging in an off the record as far as we can tell contact with the jail staff pursuant to some cocky get heard in the community that there was discussion of heralding koreans were to work release business too decide whether to prohibit work release that means your only quarrel is whether you get it in writing or whether we did it orally on the phone  it in compliance with one thirty seven zero seven one because that is the procedural statute which protects the defendant's liberty interest in due process it right i don't know if that's true but let's say it's true why would ever in that respect cause them to be acting wholly outside your digital art if it was the error in failing to set forth that limitation in the sentencing order combined with his subsequent extrajudicial conduct and informally apparently seven point zero seven one just to mean that saying no to work release has to be in writing i don't know that that's true i don't know that work release has to be in the written judgment but let's assume it's true and let's assume the judge made a mistake on that i still don't see where that takes them out of his judicial authority since he has expressed authority to prohibit what is the context of this particular case it's not so hard to see  authority that's how you deal with mistakes by judges why couldn't what was available or not available to him if he had disinterest i don't know exactly what it was to me to to and i think it was arguably well put before the court below and ought to be sent back there for further proceedings district attorney may on their motion on a motion to direct the sentencing order to do otherwise no work to keep them in jail none of those procedures were invoked in this case the sentencing authority never gave the requisite notice to the judge the judge acted on his own and not pursuant to the statute you have a single case that has ever been decided in any american jurisdictions state or federal where judge was found liable for deprivation of constitutional distributed was not in fact within his power because of the manner in which he did it he did not do it in accordance with unseeded what you said you are arguing with what i suggest to the court is that even judicial officers are held to two things number one can he prohibit work release number two does he have to do it in writing in the judgment or do you have a single case total silence was about a year and a half if i recall correctly and then he was nature ecstatically county jail early and i'm not as far as the timing of when this issue first came up it could well advantage that if he had filed this corpus action the important point here is that when petitioner first played the first race this he was he was under the misconception that or else when thirty seven fifty five twenty seven one did not apply to him and as we have been saying all the way through the  time late in the proceedings what that statute is is simply a direction to the court about what is to be included in a judgment there is no case and i am aware of an oregon law that says that any violation of that particular as far as what is to be included in judgment gives rise to any sort of remedy to the defendant other than entry of the correct judgment but in any event i think the important point here is that there is no and the plaintiff has never established any and i'm not not aware of any there is no spats shoot or rule or administrative regulations that in titles anybody serving time in a local jail to be released on work release under any sort of circumstances whether somebody in the local jail is to be released on work release or anything like that is entirely within the discretion of the local supervisory a discretionary decision that is made by the local jail or depending upon programs available people in jail whether there's overcrowding problems the person's participation behavior in the jail there's a myriad of things that go into the supervisory authority now it is also within the local trial court's authority to determine whether anybody who is in local jail can be released on one of those times material it was the policy of the curry county judges not to allow individuals serving sentences for parole violations to participate in special programs and petitioner are a plaintiff in he anybody serving time in local jail on a probation violation was to be precluded from these sort of work release program and the local supervisory authority which has the authority on a day to day basis to determine who doesn't make any argument that those statutes his case in one thousand nine hundred ninety s as we explain in our grief the organ statutes were amended and now they require that if there is any sort of restrictions on release those restrictions have to be put in the answer to the question i ask your adversary is there going to kate that was found liable for not putting in something and in writing that he was allowed to do so long as he did it in writing not that i'm aware of and as far as i can force me and he was sentenced the problem is that it was just wasn't listed in the judgment which strikes me as simply a judicial function whether you put somebody in judgment or not now is certainly not clear as a matter of state organ state law that  something at that time that needed to be in the judgment there is no authority that i'm aware of that says that that is so but that certainly i think that there is no basis for asserting that the failure of the court to put that specifically in the judgment was outside the court's judicial