precedent in the lincoln case in your st issue you state your raising this disparate impact point simply to preserve it for further review other words you concede that lincoln property in heartland and i want to rent to somebody without care and i'm being prevented by this rule i would have to sue not agree or that represents tenants right i mean how do you have standing spending money getting there and i'm not saying that you can't represent tenants i'm saying that a person that is not allowed to rant at their house they now have fewer people that can rent their house k s that's the landlord you all don't something like in the case status but here your argument is on behalf of the landlords are being prevented from doing something they want to do they're the ones that have to sue and i don't see how you have standing for the landlord that's the black tenants from our land because they're there on balance and that exclusion is being accomplished because ireland specifically saying that they are not eligible to  eliminate african americans rather than to just they don't want attendance as naturists i'm not agreeing with such a concept i may not agree that they should do that i'm just saying how do we know  have black tenants who are not only eligible for rental  part of the other evidence is going to the next step and that is given that the only reason for the exclusion of the black tenants belton's there has to be a legitimate non discriminatory interest reason or that towards there is no legitimate reason because no reason for that rule and never been given it wasn't given during president that was that last year christie generally our motion to dismiss was final before the linking opinion actually came out and then the link and opinion came out before the court the district court to introduce order granting our that are in the community that would not determined by the existence of this policy that that was determined individually independently before the policy which this is very similar i believe to the case to the disparate impact case and words coerces tonio and that case the a bit concept was they were not promoting non whites for certain jobs or they were not hiring no one wants for certain jobs and it fact that they have come into the community in that fashion is not what the effect of the polls is because we always have to go back to the effect and the effect to disproportionately  adversely affect minorities and in this case the answer to that is we don't know because we don't have any facts to just to determine what the overall racial composition certainly is and i think that really heartland was seventy five percent white and twenty five percent african american and and the population of the african and african american population in heartland was then twenty five percent  asked american but also all of those were one hundred percent on vouchers then i can see the argument that that presents a disparate impact if you remove or disparate treatment even if you remove  all of those people who could only enter hartley and because they were on the outskirts but we don't know that from the facts that have been stated because we don't know how many of the residents and that's another distinction that is implied in this case is that since this is a single family home community we're not just talking about renters we're talking about residents at the population and people who are excluded or included in the pot in the community is renters and homeowners so since we don't know the racial composition the percentage of african americans on counters who make up the percent of what percentage of them make up african american you can't just issue a policy that says no african americans that will be fairly obviously thrown out and very problematic so they think well how do i get there without anyone knowing and getting there and that can't be one hundred percent effective because  person i i understand where you're coming from with that i think the issue with respect to the pleadings when we get back to this case is we know the number ninety six but we don't know what provision that issue there was no there was no particular reason given however this provision and or this policy change came at the same time as other policy changes affect by the racial implications to that serving because these are people who cannot be criminals to be able what i'm referring to is also the other provisions of the other policy changes that have been pleaded which were to reduce the number of rentals that landlords can of of homes that landlords can own and the purpose given for that was to reduce investor landlords from coming in and buying the property in heartland in general because the interest of the homeowners association was to encourage home ownership and to create rentals in general rentals in general because they wanted more participation in the community they wanted people who are actually owning their homes and taking pride in ownership and and actually spending more time in the community and with no in were dealing with the sex got a little in the complaint that no reason was given with respect to this particular provision and the house what i am what i am suggesting is that in addition to that in the complaint i alleged that the reason given for other policy provisions at the same time were to decrease the number of rentals in general in the heartland and that reason with giving them the same context how the lack of or that the less rentals discourages the investors from actually owning homes to rent to i i don't think that that that that distinction matters in this case because i think that those those landlords who are subject to that rule they are part of the home association and the decision making process and subject to any kind of policy changes that are made in the community that the community would not enact this policy without  reference to what the owners wanted i know that is the end of the record but the point is that i think that's a distinction and i think that otherwise i think the other issue is we always have to go back to what is the disparity that is alleged and in this case the disparity is alleged very specifically to vassar so it's not it's not that this post is going to have an adverse impact  disproportionately after it takes effect it is that all of the chapters that exist prior to this policy show that there are more  black section eight voucher recipients that could be affected in this community because that's how big this already but that was not that was not created this policy that is something that existed before  with respect to the disparate treatment claims there are there is there are no facts to gammon straits that there was any there was any relation between this policy and also in great what facts would expect i mean again in the current world there are certainly people who express racism but there are people who feel racism but if you not express it in trying to find another way to satisfy their particular improper go and so i don't know that we can just expect everybody to run around making racist comments and that's the only way you can prove this so how would you what would be in a twelve  me to support this short of a racist blogger posted something by heartland i think in looking at the disparate impact and because that's really what the relied on for disparate treatment is to use the circumstantial evidence of impact i think it has to be factors that show that there is there is an exclusion that how would you show that when they haven't had a chance to get the documents and any you know witnesses to come forward is a poor will be fixed so they have to read what they know and as i said i think there few people who hide racist voted certainly people who say it but there are people who hide it and then there's of course people who don't have it not suggesting otherwise but that middle ground of people who have it and don't want to say it and  find a way around saying it how would you ever prove that sort of the circumstances such as this one that everyone affected by this is a particular race what is there i think that the problem is with everyone affected by this it's of a particular race is that we're not looking at that point percentages or a comparison between percentages just proportionately impacted between the races at that point we just looking at numbers and when we do that what point is that number becomes if coming weren't so we're talking in the record on this case ninety six what if that number was two  and the two thousand homes there were zero dollars two cents name recipients who existed or who were renting in this neighborhood and the policy affected to what if it was five what if it was ten at one point why  like that there are there are no facts to show that you can you can figure that out after the fact but if you were looking at what was their intent at the time how would you be able to determine that if they didn't they didn't know how many  families were actually families whereas the black families in the community of which we did do not know we don't know the percentage difference between what percentage of the community african americans in all of our land that would be a fairly significant and then to say sorry you can't believe that although we're now making a basket case point i don't know you tell me what do you what do you think on that i think that's a good down heartland knock on every door and look this people undecided when he thought what race he thought they were which is not always determinative by looking at people you know so how do you know how do we get th numbers i think that's something that the plaintiffs would have to investigate at that stage before actually bringing the lost but how would be appropriate how would be investigated how would we find out  i mean at this point mr daniel does know that the ninety six households that have sixty eight doctors are also asking we have to find out i mean i think that there are there must be ways and and tell us why did we not have this number why why don't we have this number of what how many other african americans are besides that your vote is the reason you don't have the number of the rest the heartland is all african american i know that's not the case but what if there was then this would be a completely frivolous lawsuit so how do we how do we know those numbers and how are they not relevant validation is that all ninety six thousand older and and heartland are black and there are no white boucher's in the heartland that the rule of fact only is one hundred percent