for a motion for judgment as a matter of law did not include the transcript of the judge's ruling on that in your appendix well their reason why you did not there was not if that there was an oversight if if we did not the relevant ruling mean that is what's on appeal and you did not include it you included a lack of other just kind of random pages from the transcript of that trial but you did not include the relevant piece of information well then i would ask for leave to file that relevant piece that's not necessary because now we've pulled it from the docket but in the future you need to include that information thank you apologize most particularly it is the thrust of our appeal in this action that we believe that there was no reasonable basis to believe a conspiracy existed between the hauser's and the state actors chris quick and russell adams chris quit was the state's attorney of lawrence county russell adams of being the sheriff of said county in order to prove a conspiracy a combination of two or more persons must act in concert to commit an unlawful act or to commit a lawful act by on lawful means and again a review of the record shows that there was no when where why or how between the parties as to how this conspiracy existed of it is clear from the record that a valid warrant for capacity to advise both the sheriff and the chief of police chief white during this period of time as to how the arrest was to occur and what the procedure would be with regards to the placement of the minor ch now as the court is well aware a minor child was involved during this arrest a four year old child that would have been left at the home without a parent to supervise not  was a statute that was consulted both by the state's attorney the chief of police the sheriff and other police officers involved in this instance and that is seven hundred and thirty five aisle c s five backslash one hundred and seven dash t o that statute provides when a person may be arrested or detained and also provides a procedure when a minor child may be left at home well that seems to be that difficult to go it only statutes as to how police officers ought to work and in a year in the rest situation they don't really develop where they don't really create a cognizable liberty interest in the that's in forcible in federal court and i'd like your views on that it seems to me that that really you frankly seems to me the district court should have dismissed this case ok well i would then i agree with you obviously  upon that the thrust of my argument was that the police officers acted with in their capacity as police officers they followed the law as it was stated to them however rightly or wrongly it could be interpreted they followed the law all and specifically it provides for a procedure by which a child left alone  should be placed and again i agree with your honor i do not believe it did create a liberty interest in the point of the grandparents had a private detective and that they met with the police and that the child in advance was going to be placed with and that they sought this arrest for the purpose of taking the child from the mother is what evidence showed at trial well and whether or not we would be aware that evidence differently we have to look at it in the light most favorable to the point if that is correct your honor and again with regards to that the parties must act in conjunction with the state actor in order to come within the realm of section one thousand nine hundred and eighty three again they were concerned for the safety of this minor child that doesn't matter they may have had a motive for wanting to take her and frankly some of the evidence that you want to exclude i think helps the plaintiff's case and so far as it shows why the grandparents wanted to get the child out of the house but even a grandparent who has a motive to want to get the child out of the house can't conspire with the police to get the child out it but the but the conspiracy must be both ways and with regards to that conspiracy it is clear from the record that there was no agreement between the state actors and my clients to remove the child from the house there was an agreement to effectuate an arrest and to follow the law as they saw the law existed at that time and sheriff the chief of police two officers that work for the chief of police and the house and these and to pre arrange in advance that they will take the child that they're trying to remove from the house if the party being arrested consented and i believe the evidence at trial showed that the party being and i think the record is clear they were there for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the minor child and a jury that could look at that evidence and conclude that they were there because they had conspired with the police to take the child from the home i don't believe based upon the evidence that was present this is a sufficiency of the evidence argument correct yes that is correct and that is the argument that you're raising here you're not raising any argument about a liberty interest correct no so you've waived any argument to that effect this is a sufficiency of the evidence that's correct ok and i believe that the jury came to their conclusion based upon the fact that they did not like what the house  again the sufficiency of the evidence must go to whether a conspiracy existed and whether her rights were violated pursuant to color of state state law whether by unlawful means or unlawful lawful means to commit an unlawful act the facts in here i believe are pretty simple the interpretational law for counsel the court is absolutely right this this is a case about illegal conduct going about a conspiracy to take a child away from a home there can't be any real question but there were substantial evidence before the jury that the trial court specifically resided in ruling on not only the motion for directed verdict at the close of pleas case but also at the end of the case and cited all of the evidence matter fact the trial judge said to counsel isn't it true that this evidence was before the jury and this was before the jury and counsel admitted that it was but then he wants to come here and ignore that evidence but you have evidence in this case probably more so than in any other case involving conspiracy where the defendants call the chief of police they arrange for meetings at the courthouse after hours they mange for a private meeting after hours at the police chief's gun they travel together to the police station with the police chief gets cold feet he won't affect the arrest neither will his deputies so they call the sheriff at home in bed and he comes two o'clock on sunday morning to the police station and he calls the state's attorney and the dispatcher puts him black and white per the sheriff the state's attorney has said the child will be placed with the hauser's it's in writing so so the jury says yeah there was the agreement to take this child illegally doesn't matter whether their arrest was appropriate as the court pointed out the the children often accompany the parent it's a matter of fact jade green testified that she had other people that were willing to come and take care of the child but jack and angela wanted the child so they could run to another county get an order of protection a private client and her rights under the law there was a question as to whether or not there's any illegal illegality of what's going on counsel keeps talking about the statute and the judge specifically found that it require there's the consensual cooperation which apparently there was testimony that wasn't any of that either but you can't take someone's child without due process the state illinois state trooper who testified said that he was considering filing kidnapping charges that that's what they did they kidnapped this child from its parents by taking the child without due process counsel didn't argue  now that the trial for eric somehow by excluding this evidence of their motive you the court mentioned it but you know he could have been the direct descendant of the boston strangler but he still has to follow the law in terms of taking custody of a child away from a parent you can't just arrange to have the state's attorney the sheriff and the chief of police go out to the house in the middle of the night and grab the child that's just not how it works that is an illegal act and the jury found that it was illegal and then they assessed damages though there was there was no offer of proof in this case as to what this other evidence would have been that counsel wanted so it's hard for us to know but the other aspect i think that the trial court had to consider was we'd have ended up with a trial within a trial because and mr green would have wanted to show that while the grandparents believed that he was really an awful person that that he wasn't and that wasn't the issue really before the court he lived with grandma and grandpa on the child in their house with this order of protection for a long period of time and the jury did hear that and they they were aware of that but the long and short of it is there was all kinds of evidence in this case that that these parties got together that they came up with an agreement and that agreement included checking to see that mr green was at work when they went going to the house it included having the hauser's follow them including a signal from the police to jack to come into the house because he didn't come in additionally it included letting him into the house when he wasn't invited it included taking the trial and all of that was predetermined prior to the time they did with they did which was to take this child illegally and based upon that did yuri awarded damages and justice the trial court said there may not be complete agreement by this court with what those damages are but they're reasonable and there's nothing in argument today that suggests that the awards were inappropriate that the suggestion in the brief that the attorneys fees were higher than they should have been there was no objection to the attorney's fee bill which was presented to the jury it came into evidence without objection and matter of fact the jury even looked at it closely enough that they reduced the amount by the amount that was recovered in fees for the settlement with the sheriff and the state's attorney so  there really is nothing that says this award was anything other than a reasoned decision by the jury based upon this evidence they heard they heard evidence that people were taking the law into their own hands that they were doing it to get of this child they did committed an illegal act and as a result of that the jury returned a verdict in favor of them the trial court very carefully considered debt that ruled on this at least four times in terms of the summary judgment the motion for directed verdict the motion for directed verdict the clothes of all the evidence and the motion to reconsider all of those times the court set forth these elements of evidence which were before the jury and found that a reasonable jury could reach those results i believe that based upon that this court should affirm the trial  honor with regards to the damages there we we brief that issue in our brief we believe that the damages were excessive based upon a number of issues and  granted they used the process that is set forth in the state of illinois to do what they did but it is also clear that jade green did not attempt to contact her minor child there was evidence that she knew how to call her mother she knew where the child was she knew the child was with her mother and her stepfather  when she was offered two weeks later to visit the child at any time she wished as long as mr green was not present she declined to do so also clear that a month and a half later she received extensive visitation with her minor child now with regards to the motion and lemonade that granted or prohibited the defendants from going into  evidence prior to september of two thousand and fourteen there was evidence and we cited it in our brief of dirty house violence between the parties both jade and josh green and that goes directly towards damages and that's why i'm i'm bringing up now also orders of protections as that were issued as against mr josh green now that was explored during the trial and it was explored during the trial because plaintiff it opened the door with regards to that but it was not explored in context and in context of to explain why the hauser's did what they did that here and again i believe that went directly towards damages and we cited that to the court said well yeah maybe with regards to damages but i'm just not going all out and so i think that was  improper when the court ruled that way and again i do not believe that the evidence as set forth in this case was sufficient to prove a conspiracy there was just know agreement between the parties to deprive jade green of her minor child thank you counsel the case is taken under advisement and we