number of immunities that have been raised by various defendants and these immunities can only serve as shields to the particular type of claims so the for example the absolute immunity may be it may not be granted but you can ask did you ever ask to refile that count i did not ask to refile the account because the decision was with prejudice as a matter of law do w would reach it because it was dismissed and i'm saying i'm arguing here that they had was error on the part of the trial judge to cut short the federal claims simply because there was an indictment this against which defendants that would be in jones with respect to the first amendment but i do believe there was a conspiracy claim attached to death federal claim but i think the judge brought this ruling extended on either any other witnesses any other evidence was there was there was a mean whether or not it is intended to prove probable cause i would argue against it but really were rather there were multiple witnesses but i still think the tend to favor logical conclusion if there were no other know whether of no other evidence presented to them all of its present your witnesses that there would be no indictments with respect to the supreme court's ruling and rubber v sure in there or there are perfect or analysis of why this ruling is tailored to that situation so that's why it is a asking you is there other testimony out than the officer's testimony before the saying here now who want there's absolute immunity for grand jury testimony in against a federal section eighty three claim and in rhetorics case because his case and i had to go back to the eleventh circuit opinion which gave a more relations are what is the malicious prosecution from where one of those in particular well there was this investigation into the going to the burning of the child and then there were there was a tutti that interfered with the family relations and i think that all combined together the facts are they told mr barak's he could not see his children and if you tried to he would be subject to criminal san n when they turned their back on all the statements of the name of the investigating initial responding officer officer saw her doctor going nellie all of this information that they had they turn their backs on it claim well there is the case that was raised by the defendants do overs as we kate which tends to be not affirmatively recognizing such a claim but restricting it for dove is when you have all the types of claims such as a whole no practice or negligence you're going to get your relief there is just too complicated to go forward and i'm saying that if it doesn't affirmatively exist it should be recognized in illinois regardless of whether there's a restriction if you have other negligence claims that could be brought that would complicate such a claim i'm saying that there are inroads into the presentation of that type of claim it have to be the supreme court of the state establishing that through adoption every statement or adoption of some other entity or can i trust her do it can we do it i do believe that has considered this even considered it basically not not just denied it they considered it aside from the two cases that i discussed in my brief no i did not cite any others and i think that there was there was a it could be if depending on how much further involvement he had after a deal a warrant was issued because an officer if he perpetually needs a warrant that he knows to be proceeding because if the officer then continues on perpetuating it the trial and so forth that it's have to comply but he never actually charged them or or alleged that they and as a primary allegation that anybody lied before the grand jury correct your allegation is false arrest i do believe the fact maybe not the word live but i think the complaint the reading of the complaints would show that he was misstatements a the grand jury  all right thank you mr stern you'll have some time each and every claim those are in unities those are pleading deficiencies and as a threshold jurisdictional matter we believe that there is an issue with the claims alleged against these defendants and their state claims which are properly heard within considered state law employees how about employees who are acting outside or beyond the scope of certainly that's one of the elements that the courts look at when they decide whether a case really is one against the state and significantly here to although he says that complaint is alleged against him martin in both his individual and official capacities he does not affirmatively state that mr martin acted outside the scope of his employment and so forth for each of the other elements corporate claim being won against the state of illinois we believe that an analysis of the activities that are alleged against mr martin are those the underneath his capacity and purview as a state employee his  kind of enter mesh under six fifteen pleading standard we don't believe that he has done that we don't believe that any of the facts in light most favorable to the plane have taken any of the actions that mr martin is alleged to have done and we don't believe that those state a claim  on their face for each and every state claim now as to the remaining federal claims we believe that the allen castro case stands for the proposition that once state law claims are sent down to the court of claims the  remaining pendent federal claims are dismissed as well and the reason behind that is the premise of eleventh amendment liability when you're talking about a federal claims being had against was essentially the state of illinois that can't be that that's not proper under federal principles but if that they're not sent to the court of claims there is an issue there is still an issue for the state court as opposed to the court of claims to decide correct and there could be there could be  entitled to either absolute immunity or qualified immunity depending on the type of activity that he's alleged to have committed one of the points that i want to make clear to this court is that mr martin is not alleged to have testified before the grand jury mr jones is the one who testified before the grand jury this plaintiff says in his amended complaint the sole basis of the indictment was mr jones testimony so to the extent that absolute immunity could apply to any of the federal claims against mr martin i would direct the court's attention again to the rayburn case one of the things the rayburn case says that is that you can have absolute immunity for grand jury testimony but you can't plead around that  absolutely need by also pleading a conspiracy claim so the federal conspiracy claims that attempt to tie mr martin into that falls grand jury testimony to the extent that they do we believe that absolute immunity applies for mr martin in those instances that beyond that i'm qualified immunity we believe applies to the remaining federal claims because as the court knows that qualified immunity will protect a state government employee where there has those types of elected county officials are considered functionally state actors for purposes of liability and unity and what is i know what the c d c is that what is its authority what is it approach to investigating and prosecuting child abuse sexual abuse and neglect cases and so each county sets up through its county board in the kane county  see and in our case the state's attorney's office sends over summer prosecutors to work functionally in that building the purposes one of the purposes is to when dealing with these sensitive child victims mannish  for purposes of this case when we're talking about tim martin the c d c isn't the type of entity that can control or direct mr martin's employment actions or firing the trainer he's trained by the state's attorney's office in the state's  though while we're talking about the safety safety plan was there ever a safety plan but your honor it frankly speaking i don't know i don't think it was ever made clear by the pleadings plaintiff acknowledge in one of his pleadings below that there may have been a safety plan in place i think anybody ever produces a safety plan to to mister barnes in this case i don't know your honor i think  s controls the issuance of a safety plan and i think as seen in many complaints there were at least five or six or seven different people who believe that a safety plan was in place and in the moment of this terrible damage to this child is what is being alleged however under very rare this testimony given by officer johns before the grand jury is granted absolute immunity even if it's false even if it's false  year based upon i guess the extended injuries caused to this point to tell me why he's wrong because it could be an extension of a long and injury based on one initial contact it does not m continues to work so it has to be the continuous negligence now the continuous injury in this case mr bennett one only contact with mr barnes that was on august seventeenth of two thousand and nine the you're counting those days thereafter in italy a lot know so when was he released from rio he was not releasing too long after they claim the statute expired the complaint was filed on the date of the handing down of the grand jury indictment two years the the complaint as it's written and i have to respond to the motion as it's written in the new year it's inappropriate to ask for amendments when in the response to motion dismiss i did say that it is to be appropriate and i didn't indicate investigative center and they don't bother to know what a safety play it is they're saying we were immune from liability desk separate constitutional claims and everything there's been a lot of discussion about the first amendment claim or the false arrest claim but there are through the bodies respect to the children's mother and want to see his children or get an order in the course of the i don't know what you're talking about there's no restrict when i was there that was the morning of the indictment december i believe thirteenth which is  saying there is no there is no reason no one raised the basis for you not seeing it mr barnes presumed it was in the domestic relations court or to the i forget what the proper title is i don't practice in that field that that's where he should go to address the safety course of conduct to preclude your plane from scene is charged as of december first twenty nine two years prior to the filing of the complaint he was still barred from seeing his child based on this erroneous thought that there was a safety  hospital every day to know that they're not going to let you in arrest you this is the threat was if you come back you're going to be arrested but this is a man who didn't go on to the trial for being asked to visit with his children because there's a daughter involved too to see his children in the truck courts and she can see the children and he still doesn't try to go when not well that he was indicted and then the condition of his bond is a legitimate complaint as the think the ones that are in play are the the the fourth and fourteenth amendment claims of the false arrest the conspiracy the federal conspiracy with that then there's the the federal denial of family relations and the conspiracy of action however they just dispose of it on the merits and then subsequently addressed again told where they said you know we don't we're not allowing this cause of action because if you've got negligence counts and medical malpractise counts you don't need to us to paraphrase the supreme court but i think that they didn't say it's it would not survive in a case such as this where there is no attendant or her claim of liability been similar fashion have negligence issues intentional infliction you have false arrest licious prosecution so wouldn't this could just layer dissent out and say you don't need that either not really because the federal claims of aren't intentional in nature so they wouldn't be negligent babies but second of all the federal claims could be wiped out and you could still have  interference of family relations stand whereas for example in a medical malpractise case where you're between dies in the hospital in there is no i'm not a homeowner practice you cannot have an interference family relations case it's predicated soley on the negligence in this case is predicated on intentional conduct direct intentional interference so i think this is a better case factually speaking to make that law than diverse ok thank you so much  ladies and gentlemen thank you for your time in who are intelligent humans who really appreciate