Are you telling me that your client's shoes could not understand you can't commit perjury in a court proceeding in order to take somebody's children away?

Are you telling me that your client's shoes could not understand you can't commit perjury in a court proceeding in order to take somebody's children away? Of course not, your honor. Of course not. Then isn't the case over then? The case is over. Because Castanich is distinguishable in my view. How, how in the world, Castanich deals with a secondary, you know, foster care. That's a whole strange thing. It's not a person's real child, real child. Even if Castanich is And guardian's the same thing. Even if Castanich is distinguishable, um, there is thus far, we have not been presented with any, um, clearly established right that tells us that what our clients did, which is remove the children pursuant to a court order. No, but what they're accused of doing and what the issue is here is committing perjury in a court to take away someone's children. And you just said that's obviously not okay to do. According to our moral compass and our ethical guidelines, but what we're here to decide is the constitutionality of it and we look to the courts. You mean due process is somehow consistent with a government official introducing perjured testimony and false How is that consistent? I mean, I hate to get pumped up about this, but I'm stunned, staggered by the claim that people in the shoes of your clients wouldn't be on notice that you can't use perjury and false evidence to take away somebody's children. That to me is mind-boggling. In, and in, in, in criminal proceedings, we know this to be true because that No, no, a criminal proceeding, this is, it's court, it's a court proceeding with a liberty interest, a fundamental liberty interest at stake. And on the reverse side, the state And you're telling us that, you're telling us that these officials who do this all the time couldn't be on notice that you can't commit perjury and put in false evidence. I understand broadly the principle that, um, common sense tells us that lying is wrong and lying to Yeah, but it's more than common sense. We're not using common sense, we're using the statutes, for example, against this kind of behavior. I, I don't, I, I was not presented, I have not been seen any federal law, case law, or law that tells me that in this situation that we were faced in, which is what we have to deal with. Well, say your, say your clients hired six people to be actors and to go into court and say, we're neighbors and we saw all this terrible stuff. And then your clients presented those witnesses in court. You're telling me that they would have no reason to believe that you can't do that because there was no federal case that says you can't bring actors into court to swear falsely against somebody. But again, here we're appealing to sort of a broader definition of what is a clearly established right. I mean, we have to find the clearly established right in the context that our, um, social workers were presented with, which was they were faced with a court order. You know, again, I cannot even believe for a microsecond that if that a case