conspiracy we had evidence that was not my question that if the jury found one not the liable at circuit city they could still find the other no worries when this case is presented to a jury hoping that they they arise that they could find the coping then you don't find them liable for anything because you haven't planted a section one hundred eighty three my relation of constitutional right case against krugman assumption i great that has not been my question to you is this what is your best evidence as to the creation of a material triable issue of fact that a mother valois conspired with testified and then at the time of the trial of the trial ok so to answer your question directly lavelle's testimony that when and when when jack was asked whether he smoked mob rolls and went for his pocket and discovered he didn't have a cigarette in his pocket as he expected them to be was a lie it wasn't part of the evidence he made it up and he could only have made it up because he was joining forces with krugman that that cigarette pack was evidence that that that and i think took  outside the r v that's one of the statements why unlike you time that the preliminary hearing jack reached for a pack of marlboros and this is a it's it's an absolute fabrication why muslim velma said that only if he was in concert and conspiracy with krugman would there be any other reason to say that the object of that statement was to ensure their conviction and deprive them of that defense you could be mistaken the only conclusion no not necessarily the only one but this is the point of summary judgment i'm entitled of the move as an unmoving party to the inference that most favors me what's the evidence that krugman was alone in the trailer did the photograph right they couldn't find the ice because that never happened but this knife blade shows up at the trial and the only evidence pinning it to are zala was that tiny little d n a not blood type of it how could self defense defense in the underlying criminal case tell me what the evidence of proving the meeting of minds is all on october seventeenth lavelle testified under oath that jack did not inform him that as being in the evidence good even though i don't particularly remember it i want to reserve some time and i notice i have four minutes and thirty five seconds so let me step down make roman more credible you know and i would disagree only why because i think that in order to get from point a to point b as ron has expressed here there are far too many inferences that exist there are far too many on one well but that's not what exists here what we have here is a metaphysical doubt we have exactly what the well i think the problem is is that when you attempt to link these two together there isn't an equivalence you can't get there based upon these inferences the problem is that there are  damn good circumstantial evidence well maybe in that case i would agree with you but in this case i don't believe we could have come up with the idea that he saw a blade and a ma when he arrived at seven fifteen am other than mr krugman telling him say that you found that when you arrived because otherwise it wasn't there to lie any event i cannot get into a hyper technical analysis of the minute in any way that's going to necessarily be satisfactory it's a convoluted case but what i'd like to argue is that the facts are inconvenient no i'm not arguing the facts are inconvenient what i'm saying is is that based upon the controlling precedent in the ninth circuit ok what we have here is no plausible motive so if we were to accept your honour's theory about what happened i cannot tell you nor can the appellant nor can anyone in this case why the officers would have any incentive whatsoever to arrive on scene of an object of the insane stabbing incident and somehow have the reason motivation to work a straight plant tamper  relevant when we're dealing with it entire matrix of metaphysical considerations that have been set forth by the attorney and the answer to the question is yes or no no the elements of a conspiracy claim are whether or not the individuals had an express or implied agreement to deprive an individual their civil rights know what they are and secondly whether or not the deprivation of the civil rights occurred and so how does this get can can you get back to the question and the question being i'm sorry i don't i don't recall based upon i want to draw different inference but record volume one you'll see in the oral argument that there was strenuous point made with respect to the photographs and counsel and and all the counsel got together and looked at that photograph to blow it up this is a photograph that was depicted at night from a far distance  conclusive determination one way or the other as to what that photograph was depicting this isn't your group i'm sorry i don't know specifically of this point was discussed in the brief because the photograph issue was something that council of all of us met together and we shooting investigation all of the officers had occasion to go meet up outside and sort of like you know look at the various facts of the case and come to some sort of agreement as to how they were going to respond as to why the individual had injuries to his shoulder and his arm and exactly in that case we have the same situation well now because that's a conversation that was a question about whether the officer said havel then come up with a story but there was a conflict as to whether or not that story was true we have a photograph here we have a couple of hill bloom versus county of fresno a two thousand and ten decision from the eastern district of tel for all of those cases in a similar fashion dealt with allegedly conflicts in evidence that were then used by  create a total tale as to what conceivably could have occurred under the circumstances the problem is we don't have any direct evidence we don't have any circumstantial evidence other meeting of the minds between these officers used that you still haven't answered my was there when i first arrived what was it a mistake of fact as your honor pointed out your question to counsel that makes no i don't think so when we when we look at what's required for conspiracy claim and what we need to prove relative to krugman and lavelle they need to have agreed on some level and we don't have evidence of that agreement either tacit position there has to be direct evidence of an agreement so the circumstantial evidence isn't good enough and what judge bay is trying to get you to answer is why not because in this particular case i think your answer is that no reasonable juror could find it here if asked to be that's correct because the problem is that the circumstantial evidence in this case while evocative of one particular explanation question here is whether or not there's an issue of fact but but he only need one right i understand that but i think the confusion that surprised here is that they've taken all of these these sort of hyper technical little facts about where cigarette pack here was where a knife blade was and from from that premise of their location and their disposition the only conclusion that penelope is not the only they only need one i understand that but conveniently that conclusion because i don't think i'm in this particular case there is a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence that evidences a meeting of the minds or sufficiency of circumstantial evidence we were the existence of the tr what possibly could have been could have existed under the circumstances isn't evidence it wasn't direct evidence and it's not sufficient circumstantial evidence for which a reasonable jury could conclude that these individuals were deprived of their civil rights a good jury argument unless there are any further questions i would submit your honour's and thank you very much for your time