impaired at twenty five of the thirty minute complaint and of course we are dealing with a case of a twelve b six dismissal and so it's it is the complaint that controls here and explains how a detective tampered with a witness we had this raid on a car auction i said letters to the sheriff saying none of these cars were stolen my clients have permission from the to the title owners to sell these cars in this detective goes out g that alone is a due process violation once a detective gets called out for not having the case he doesn't get to go out and coerce or threaten a witness to try to retroactively create probable cause of that alone would require reversal related to this auction seize duckett's related these court they seized everything the man known and not just that they held it for sixteen months after i was sending letters to both sheriffs the district attorney saying these records have nothing to do with a car auction some of these are titles to other cards that he owned that he needs to sell and he couldn't and he just arbitrarily refused for sixteen months to release any of these records they've nord of being the pro vehicles were stolen ok and that's what's so crazy about this because in this day and age as you know that a cop who walk up look at your windshield and run your venom by computer instantly tell whether the vehicles been reported stolen and the defendant argument here is will it somehow twenty thirteen no one of them is twenty fourteen there's a distinction within the statute of limitations showed i didn't recall that in your briefing yes it is actually it's that's brought out in both the opening  county trying to run a guy out of crimes county on this day the joint task force between the two counties in this auto theft task force was jointly controlled by the chief counties and so yes the primary impetus for montgomery county gets involved as early on that in the twenty fourteen early twenty fourteen my client complains to the chief of the task force and says your guys are targeting me with bogus stops  bogus citations and that's when things really double down so that that alone i would argue was a first in retaliation issue my client had the right to go to that task force him and commanders say you guys are out of control but the problem is from that point forward the retaliation just got stronger and stronger and more expansive i mentioned briefly there you know the fifty six cars were seized at this option and i tried to argue well you know that was not our choice jury indictment cut off the chain of causation between any malfeasance that may have been committed by the defendants before and your claims today there are two to it and it's yours that two as what his shoes i had listed or they just really not dealt with that ok best case scenario for them it was a legitimate grand jury indictment that does not change the fact that you've got officers going out and threatening witnesses and tampering with evidence and you won't even invest and yet you're trying to run monday through the ringer so that is not affected by the injury but then i would argue that the case law is also clear on this that where information has been with withheld from a grand jury with false information has been properly a grand jury indicts then you've got the intermediary situation your argument in is if you lie cheat and steal that doesn't apply so either then you mentioned the one the share of the officer going and but causing the witness to lie other than that what other specific not just you imagining but specific points of evidence do you have that show that the in the intermediary doctrine doesn't  the other big issue that they they just ever so briefly dealt with and then is towards the end of the complaint where they tell mr shipments customers that they don't have to pay their bills you know what i mean this is  if you will stop saying what they're not addressing the court is prepared and i bet we can ask about that so why don't you start out by defending your various claims and causes of action which the court dismissed yes or other ok if i may briefly address lows in the case at the supreme court case that are brought up of the week in the if i can just read one paragraph and says and i quote an official retaliatory policy particularly troubling a potent form of retaliation for a policy can be long term and pervasive unlike an ad district attorney was involved in this and what about the timing though when we're talking about the retaliation i thought we had the arrest and then we have your comments that you think there retaliating for so how can the arrest be caused by comments that happened after then that matter so i mean this is a very broad system and it i understand that i want to be sure before your time's up that i've asked you about you brought up the curtis case and obviously we don't have to take judicial notice of an opinion we just can read it but that said you now say that the curtis panel should send their case to us did you move to consolidate either case when they were first file and then move to consolidate i just noticed that they were related ok so then how can it be that we're required to now intersect or were required to take over curtis or whatever when you did see to consolidate before you knew how curtis was going to come out i don't think you are required to that is think it's discretionary where there's a potential conflict between the panels i mean the stuff you wrote was you know calling into question a lot of things that strike me is if you thought all bad why didn't you move to consolidate such as of trying to understand  honour's mimes i don't understand it was necessary to formally most of the saudi i thought when i noticed them as related cases that the clerk's office to care for is in there and i learned the hard way that's not the way this works so it was d one two one and in that case there was a brady violation in the first conviction of murder and that the subsequently vacated the trial at the state level because of the blatant violation and this guy f aside the the conflict is that if you do not necessarily implicate the validity of the of the second conviction by challenging the first and i only cite that in the butler case to make the point that that because they happen on the same day this has to be very very specific and what the defendants have done is they try to say oh well this tampering with the titles it's the same thing as the classy unlicensed auction and it's not these are not the same event they've been caught seizing a bunch of the apples without probable cause and they try to pull in another vehicle is totally unrelated it's apples and oranges habeas corpus to state prisoners as i understand it mr shipman was never a prisoner he was arrested he was booked he pled to a class c i'm asking you if there is a case anywhere in the united states that has ever said we talk about heck questions in the context of prisoners that were never imprisoned and purposes in interstate custody and by state custody i don't mean simply arrested i mean was actually put in jail sufficient so that they could get a hideous corpus claim under twenty to fifty i have  little brief on that particular g tort claim filed by a guy who had pled guilty and received deferred adjudication for aggravated assault of a police officer which is why i'm curious about classy misdemeanors that i did not research that issue  think i'd do a supplemental brief on that particular issue not affect the other arrest in the use case we had to rest or to charge him from the same arrest and the court found that it would undermine the second charge even though not convicted because the same problem caused that's when we have a m criminal case and in the district trial court in this case a record three twenty five where he says mr quinn was convicted of selling a motor vehicle that a license the third in the complaint now wait a minute no i mean the auction never occurred so  convicted convicted of selling without you know the proper documentation when was he convicted well i mean how did how are those the same charge because he if he and the other fellows were it's a lesser included of the conspiracy to commit organized crime or whatever that right so if i look at records over page four hundred which is the beginning of the criminal plea in this case mr daniels to the prosecutor in this case and one more quote site was r five five six which was a statement or point in the federal court in this case so does your win here on appeal rise and fall on the hack argument or do you have any other arguments that you'd like us to consider their ar case so for him we went straight to the independent in a media doctrine as you know if you for some reason it hack somehow does not apply to a class a misdemeanor or something like that then you would rely on curtis i would not rely on curtis so i'm sorry you so you're saying you don't know if that's true i believe you not i could not find anything in the statute in reading the rest of the record it looks like he was saying that these were third party sales a third party of people so i don't that's like he didn't speak correctly would add it all that implicate the whole frank line of case  the one that got opened just raised in the other about whether or not these paperwork was a problem and if the record between pages for records for eleven force anyone to show exactly how messed up the paperwork and part of them is in these cars where if you go through  string cites for you here but that entirely that for living through for seventy shows how bad the time of this case were what do you mean how bad they were and other third parties names there was also some restitution paid to other third parties or if that was required by the prosecutor but what do you mean i mean so when your fellow i was very confused about and i have to ask about it so they picked up the documents that were associated with autos and were going to the auction as well as some other autos right right they picked up i think everything that was there ok and what were the documents why i mean if he does mostly repair shop why does it matter where the what the t documents show was he functioning as an unlicensed auto dealer is the contention or was that was the ultimate plea if you look at the affidavit supporting the search morning indicates a history of problems  sees license plates to cars that do not belong to mr shipman and then uses that as an affidavit to get a warrant to go seize all of the cars the fact that they don't belong to him is on remarkable given what he was doing as  fact that the statement is as you you and i both know it's not true now but you were also telling me what i sure was true at the time about the assertion that he made to the magistrate to get the warrant that started the whole case correct but if you look at the after the whole if even if you could the task force go on his property and seize fifty six cars and all the paper in the office on the basis of an assertion that we know that they don't belong to him because we've done a record search and he can't sell them i see belong to him so we know the second part is not true and so i'm trying to figure out what would be the basis for the probable cause affidavit with what's left mclean we are here today asking the court to affirm the district court's dismissal of all mr leslie shipments claims i believe the key facts that highlight the central issues in this case are relatively simple there is a raid that was conducted by law sentence is correct the one that i was talking about with your co counsel do you think it is true that african state in obviously stated do you think it is true that in texas in order for an individual to sell a vehicle with title must be in the seller's name your i believe it has to be it's never made clear that he actually had power trying to sell any of vehicles overseas it isn't that the whole purpose of having an affidavit to support a search warrant is to say we have probable cause that he doesn't have the power of attorney yes your honor and i believe in the  things down on his perhaps she's not out there you know selling stuff on on behalf of dozens of people as he is doing is a power of attorney a way around the dealers license requirement i don't believe that your honor i think your point is in that there is a number threshold county and the sheriff of crimes county in this task force and in the operations that occurred with regard to these this gentleman the allegations  my client says he's innocent probably i'm good enough because i'm probably not the first person to say that but what about the facts can the sheriff just continue to hold cars knowing that you know mrs smith owns the car and she had given consent to shipman or that shipman it turns out does own the car or mrs smith wants her car back or whatever that is within the discretion of the prosecutor as they're going through the case it is not released the sheriff had a communications with the prosecutor at the time as to whether or not this was part of the vehicles which mr shipman was trying to sell i believe that they uncovered as they were going through the prosecution that this was a vehicle that belonged to someone who was there for a repair shop and so rightfully that there is a mechanism for which they can release a vehicle that was not part of the underlying crime and so i think to say well they should have held on to this one vehicle that they realize that they didn't have not apply to mr shipman's federal claims or his state law claims i think there's two points there that still would lead to the conclusion that his claims fail first the state law claims would fail under the texas tort claims act as a district court judge found in his order his federal claims would fail i would tender to this court that the opinion in the curtis case would be instructive in that there was probable cause by the grand jury indictment and so for those two reasons even if we get past of hack so how would we know how but we have the problem because i would have it so we can make a judgment about whether and to what extent information was withheld from the magistrate with respect to the the seizure how do you do that with the group jury have to embrace was there or not we don't know who was present at the grand jury but if we know let's say there was witness a affidavit being in document c and we know that evidence existed and then we can say well that would have been available to the grand jury whether they looked at it or not so what about that what do we have in between the arrest and the indictment that would be additional evidence besides the officers affidavit the evidence that we know of that existed were the cars that were seized and the records that were seized relating to those cars and sales title that he was going to sell vehicles that he did not have authority to sell he did not have the license to be selling those vehicles well that's because because ok i see what he's saying yes he was operating as a dealer well now he for the auction now are there fact in the in the affidavit or anywhere in the record or been the pleadings that show how he your honor i believe that that affidavit it just says shows a history of citizens complaining to the task force officers that mr shipman was selling vehicles that belong to them or selling vehicles to him that they found out he that how could he now understand again the power of attorney when it's your dad or your husband or whatever that you need to have a power of attorney for but how can somebody sort of set up a business where they get powers of attorney from dozens of husband who said yeah i was coerced into signing that statement and so if we sent this back retrial would that be under eight o four for unavailable how would you get that evidence  at that so i mean again it's not damage different to say my client's innocent than to say my client's innocent of car number one two three four and five what proof was there of his authority if there's a car sitting there in my name at the master and tries to get him to say no i never gave permission you know they're deliberately trying to vitiate you know martin and the other point is this you're on with respect to the titles that burden is on them they have access to the bin computer systems i don't you know they're the ones that can do a lot of the statistics colors and look and say yeah you know what this is no stone core i mean it's been sitting out here for months and nobody's reported i mean the sort of failure to investigate just doesn't strike me as a winner when things that happened after the van jury indictment for example at the end of the complaint you know where we've got them threatening people tell him don't pay your car bills to my client according to the pleadings they did that for the express purpose of interfering with litigation so my client would go out of business and it almost worked and i'll tell your honor the reason it didn't work is because i agreed to take this case on a contingency and when offered our only we kept pushing that they try to stop this litigation that's not first and then that retaliation i don't know what it is and they've got a dress that they cannot address that i'm not no more to thank you all right thank you court will stand in recess for ten minutes