[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Okay, well then we'll, the government can make a statement if they want to.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
any concerns, I'm happy to address anything.

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
I do have a question.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:43] Speaker 01:
So I'm confused about the motion in Lemonay that was trying to strike, I think it's Washington's declaration that comes with the handbook.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
It seems like on opening brief, pages 17 to 18, the plaintiffs argued that that motion in Lemonay

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
done it incorrectly, and I didn't see a response in your brief to that, and I don't really understand.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
I would like to know if you can explain what happened with that and what your understanding of the situation is about that evidence.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, my understanding is that the motion to eliminate was directed to that evidence with respect to the pending trial, but that the court did not reach it because a summary judgment was granted, so I did not

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
have accepted it as true on its face.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
But I did not- The judge did rely on it in the summary judgment ruling.

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
Yes, the judge did, Your Honor.

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
So you say that it was about the trial, but I guess I had understood it to be both because the- I mean it was filed way before the summary judgment.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
Trying to figure out from the docket there was a lot of things going on because there were more than one summary judgment motion.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
There was

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
There were attempts to appeal at the same time.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
I mean, the trial was way off, as far as I can tell.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
So I had understood this motion to eliminate to be about the government's evidence in general, maybe for a trial, but also for the summary judgment motion.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
Are you saying that's not true?

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
That was not my understanding, Your Honor.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
But if the Court has any concerns about whether the motion only should have been granted, I'd be happy to address those.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
And so what would you say about that?

[00:02:29] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, that, you know,

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
although there are state actors who are on loan from state or local government agencies, they operate pursuant to federal purview.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
And is it possible for someone to be acting on behalf of the state and the federal government at the same time?

[00:03:28] Speaker 00:
Yes, it is, Your Honor.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
And why is that not the situation here?

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
Because the only activity that was being pursued was an investigation of whether or not the disability benefits application was accurate or whether there was any basic

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
of federal benefits.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
The two DAIs in question, they were not there to enforce state law.

[00:03:55] Speaker 00:
They were simply conducting an investigation with respect to eligibility for federal benefits.

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
But didn't – I thought ER 377 said the state terminated the state benefits because of – as to tie because of this investigation.

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
Well, the benefits

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
is the federal benefits, is that correct?

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
I believe that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
That's how the scheme is set up.

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
And there are no separate state benefits?

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
Not that I understood it as being an issue here.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
This was with respect to the federal benefits application.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
That's what I understood, Your Honor.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
For the California Department of Social Services Disability Determination Services Division, you're saying that that is not about anything that's any kind of state benefit.

[00:05:29] Speaker 00:
a federal program that there are state actors.

[00:05:32] Speaker 00:
It's an artful term, but I guess they're on loan to the federal government.

[00:05:35] Speaker 00:
They operate pursuant to federal control and pursuant to federal policies and procedures, and that's what I understood was happening with respect to the circumstances alleged in the complaint and discussed in the evidence.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
And did the investigation of Joan begin because of a state agency saying, you should look at this guy, or a man?

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
Signior and Sanchez.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
And who is Astrid Tlaizi?

[00:06:25] Speaker 00:
I believe she is a DDS employee, if I'm not mistaken, Your Honor.

[00:06:29] Speaker 02:
So she is a state employee.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
They describe her as an analyst.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
But she signed off on the investigative reports, right?

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
Well, she indicated that it had been submitted and that it was signed off by the agent in charge.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
Is Eklund Roberts.

[00:07:13] Speaker 00:
sign that matter out for investigation.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
I thought it was the summary of the investigation after it was done.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
You're saying it's the initiation?

[00:07:24] Speaker 00:
No, she, I'm saying that the, if we're, I guess it depends upon, there is an initial assessment

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
which is what was conducted here.

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
After that, the results of that interview are prepared into the form by the DDS employees.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
that starts on ER 374 and then on ER 376 it says submitted AstroTelase approved Glen Roberts.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
So we know AstroTelase is a

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
represent and what do the signatures represent?

[00:08:45] Speaker 00:
This report represents the results of the investigation and their submission to the federal government for an evaluation and a determination of further action.

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
And the payment for Sanchez and Villesonor

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
I understand, Your Honor.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
And why did it need to come through?

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
Is there a reason it couldn't have been paid by the federal government?

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
I don't quite understand the structure of all of this.

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
I don't understand what the particular considerations were that drove how the program was set up in the memorandum of understanding between the federal government and, in this case, the Los Angeles district attorney's office.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
But these are matters that were negotiated between both of those entities to implement the program.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
And when you said that someone could be acting on behalf of the state and the federal government, what do you think would have to be different than this for that to be true?

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
I asked myself that question trying to prepare, Your Honor, and I could foresee a circumstance where, for example, if you had a sworn law enforcement agent within someone's home,

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
situation where we would need to look at, at what point is this a state actor versus a federal actor?

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
I didn't see any elements similar to that in this case, but I do recognize that

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
There were state agencies involved in two ways.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
One was they were part of the day, all part of the federal state team.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
And the other way was they were just called upon by the feds to sort of be backup authority.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
And I think the court there said neither of them was acting under state law.

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
respect to state law.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
Which government entity was paying the DDS analyst?

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
You know, I don't know.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
I apologize if the court would like me to look into that.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
I would be happy to, but I did not look at that, Your Honor.

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
I think unless you have something for me to say, I think our questions have been answered.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
It's always a privilege to appear.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your