case against totally innocent meaning mr jones was prosecuted for rape sexual battery sexual assault and kidnapping the underlying criminal case grew to include nine alleged victims and thirty charge son twenty six months in jail without bail and a six week trial mr jones was finally vindicated when a jury of his peers acquitted him judgment by the district court in may two thousand and five despite the legal principle that summary judgment is a drastic devise and despite the fact that the party moving for s well i think the fact that were disputed your honor was the issues in regard to fabrication of evidence and in regard to the more specific sure the fabrication and the criminal action that as i said lasted for a while he reviewed all the evidence he reviewed the discovery he participated quite actively in the defense so he knew what the facts were what was out there and what what was going out there i believe mr public testimony that one certainly doesn't if one is an experienced attack to say one believe that there was this incident with the coffee one doesn't simply recopy the chronology tossing pages away and that there might be some explanation for that unusual procedure and that explanation can only be that there was something being hidden by the detective and throwing away the pages he thinks that it may be  the the contacts with the detective the private investigator pellicano who we all doesn't he doesn't know i mean he's just guessing what was on the log well your honor i think it's like gas coming from from someone who knows it's an opinion coming from someone who knows the procedures that should have been followed and knows the facts of the case and knows how these two secure where police officers conducted themselves in the case and what w given from the from the plaintiff appellant here and of the criminal defendant so i think it's more than just a guess i think it's an opinion based upon facts and experience other than the declaration what other factors in dispute well i think you also attached you had fabrications the public declaration was not the only one ignore it there were three declarations by pinnacle of pent that were simply ignored by the trial court and ruling on the motion for summary judge to the effect that she was coerced into making statements against joe she never testified at the trial well your honor i don't think that is the so  incarceration for a innocent man is certainly hard i don't understand how this power decoration was used to keep him in jail wow that you have to ask the judge in the in the deputy district attorney involved she they had actually suggested testimony they said if she didn't help them with that testimony well they might have to go and see about those bad check charges it didn't even stop with the filing of the lawsuit after this lawsuit was over she was visited and pressured by the two police officers involved and their representative their attorney that is set forth statement and of course you are set up i mean sure whether or not she was forced to make the statement there is no question like yeah yeah sure i guess it all depends on whether right right and then he was taken back here how did that come to pass well there were additional jane those who were who were found or who came forward supposedly and that apparently caused the judge to think there was a continuing danger and he was did mean a call it didn't have anything to do with the oh yeah sure i think her testimony was used to show that there was  testimony or fabricated evidence was used to do it was it was used to coerce my client it was urged to hamper my client it was used to beat my client mist which is in their record which is mr dunne jones declaration it's that's fourth how it was used against him i said he was president very actively involved in his defense and so he knew everything that went on in but nine who ended up testifying at trial they provided probable cause for arrest and search warrants they provided probable cause for revocation of bail they provided probable cause for a grand jury indictment and they testified against mr jones trial nothing that the officers may have done whether mistakenly or intentionally had any effect on that and if it was used against in the chronology is called an interest testimony of the testimony of the jailhouse informant there was no actual evidence of that there was mr jones opinion that matter there was no transcript of the bail hearing there was some showing mr jones had been accused of assaulting another woman after he again there was no there was nothing but mr jones and his private investigator speculating something i must you know he must have been framed because he was just as innocent as it could be and the only possible way that all of these people could have come forward against him was some grand conspiracy and there was nothing speculation and opinion there were no facts whatsoever to show that he was in any way harmed i anyway the alleged wrongdoing even again if there were disputed facts as to whether there was some wrongdoing there was no facts whatsoever showing he had been harmed therefore summary judgment is appropriate and should be affirm testimony specifically on police corruption because of how he stated he and a member of the l a p d he never stated that he worked on police corruption and matters was internal affairs anything of that sort he gave a rather general statement that this was just the way l a p d does things that he knew it's that stings but he gave no specifics whatsoever as to what he had done what he knew other people had done what he knew the department was aware of or not aware at this point and also on the substance because he really was providing nothing but speculation d i think we have to begin by recognizing that earl and had no involvement whatsoever in this chronology is so out we haven't heard that this morning we didn't see that in the brief there was nothing in the record to suggest that he had any involvement with respect to the chronology or the fabricated chronology and then responding to one of the questions you asked counsel for the co defendants i believe the exclusion of the declaration of pavel was based on the absence of him having shown foundation qualification to opine on option and police practice as well as the fact that everything within its declaration was a matter of speculation there was no reason basis for his conclusions no background in expertise and as we all know both of those would be required to have an admissible declaration when we get to the issue of bail if you will and if that deprive mr jones of constitutional right i keep asking myself the record shows that the bail was revoked but there's absolutely nothing in this record to connect any inappropriate or and if if we're going to make this connection oh i have grave doubts about whether or not that is a nine hundred eighty three violation anything whether there's a constitutional right implicated expect a bail which as you know  prefer i think it's the appellant's responsibility to show that that occurred finally let me point out that there was no evidence no argument that the county engage in any custom practice that the county can under any circumstances be held liable here i know all of these issues have been brief i don't really want to take of your time so on for the question were nine women nine women who came forward and nine women who testified well that's true and there were nine women who weren't believed there were nine women whose testimony was found not to be credible that entitles trial court i think deserves a comment and the call it really it goes to bail and and the city attorney said that  m in women's drinks i think had a major impact upon whether he got bail or not one wonders your honor in regard to the nonaligned or not how did the granted bail she'd already made that statement concept an overall theme that the of the continuing danger from mr jones in his past to pose a past behavior that led the court in our opinion to  deny bail just finishing on that for a second one wonders how this is judge nelson i'm sorry judge the argument is i'm getting at is that the individual defendants are not shown on this record to have had anything to do with the revocation of bail how do you respond to that argument assuming i've characterized it correctly well they had something to do your honor because they participated in fabricating this seven and fabricating about the revocation of bail that's the point and they're saying that there's no record of what caused that bail revocation other than jones got charged again with a similar offense you say there is something on the record that shows the individual defendants had something to do with the bail revocation that's something in the record is mr john testimony your honor in the declaration that was submitted in opposition to the summary judgment that is referenced on page twenty three of our  angeles county so i think the qualifications were well established the and the qualification for police corruption i urge the court to look at that paragraph to which appears on the