question of the application of the law to the evidence and i think i have made my arguments well as i can in the briefs and i don't have anything further  so that's that's that's a pretty good first amendment claim and you made a good argument that it's a violation of the first amendment to force this guy into that program the other one was a fourth amendment violation an seems to depend on how the court followed the evidence and ruled on summary judgment the first amendment claim seems to be a pretty good legal argument and so now i think it is long as you and i are on the same page that you're mean this defendant was not involved in that ruling he was dismissed because his the crimes against him were moved and the claims against the other defendants was not as were not dismissed by the ruling that the the difference between the two cases was in the quiet on a case he was already in prison he was not put into a program that involved a a or any he was put into a so called secular alternative program and the difference between the a and a program and the secular alternative program was that they they every place where the a any program says god they struck out god and they  you wrote which is not admissible evidence your client is now dad well the probation or parole officer says he never told me that he objected to participating in this program that there was an actual objection that with by your client who is oh well i submit your honor doesn't require an objection but he didn't fact object judge judge ever even said that there was sufficient evidence that i mean he doesn't letter to the parole board but don't you still have to make an evidentiary link that that letter that went to the board actually got into a file in that the overall office sentencing court and raising a legitimate objection to this particular condition we could be opening ourselves up to something we don't want to see i think an excellent point i think that  the rest of the world on notice th judgments are made the right decision that he's decided that there was no constitutional violation however even if there were a constitutional violation that qualified immunity does apply to officer cam not in this case and we believe that the record particularly of any of any concern to anybody until we got up there on appeal and then and then they brought bringing this up to stop oh by the way that appointment was only for six months and it's expired and therefore we want to have the people dismissed on the stand actually i have been telling my client for quite some time that we needed to do this but he was quite busy and so forth and so so on so it didn't happen but after they made the we never didn't talk about the claim against the city which is that and they never didn't bring it up in their briefs and what it was mentioned in the opening brief the claim against the city is that the that the sit prosecutors used fa testimony by mr by the officer can know that he did conduct a pat down search and that they knew it was false this resulted in mr annoyed being in prison for an additional sixteen months during which time he was in eligible for parole as soon that appeal was was dismissed dismissed by the supreme court of the state of hawaii then he was allowed to go over to whyalla and proceed with his it's a path to on parole and three months later he got  month teen month period he was sitting in jail while if a frivolous appeal is pending and least we say that was a policy of the prosecutors prosecutors can for the conduct of the officer under nine hundred eighty three the city is only liable if they have a policy which is unconstitutional and prosecutors can establish pop policy according to