the actions of the department of revenue in this case are a perfect example of why we need a bill of rights while there is a requirement that government no we need a bill of rights here to protect the due process rights of citizens let me ask you a really big question take in this case and  just one more question wouldn't this case then be a plute friend for every others homeowner in lake bluff to transform their home into a church via the internet much like your client dead and seek to avoid paying property taxes and then watch lake laughs public services that it provides go downhill because you can't lease you can't get fire you can't get schools you can all of these things that are depended on property taxes why why why would what's why would we want to even consider that individual who might seek to do the very same thing because of the way that the program the revenue him the case there's a lot i want to i want to just interject something here there is a state the hearing office in which he said that although director has revoked the initial exemption that that had no impact on his decision and then he went through the reasons fork is decision well it didn't matter because he couldn't decide the case anymore well they said then decide there were two proceedings like you said and let let's let's get it clear what happened initially was that the michaels applied for texas and it was granted based on i correct  seventy eight percent i guess because of the time of the year was grant and that soon afterwards the village of lake law and the elementary school district asked apparently the director took away the exemption through and then at some point the michaels wanted i'm sorry the armenian church wanted to question the director suddenly ripping away what had been granted but what had been granted could be taken away after a hearing if you follow the right  and well i'm just trying to get some facts out the way i understand the record now there is a section in the statute two hundred slash fifteen twenty five it does indicate that when decision the director ripped away the permit for the exemption excuse me the the hearing officer in the original action  basically was rubber stamping bad decision and the exemption itself that the the hearing officer in wired into and actually looked at the religious beliefs in making a decision which we all agree is totally improper so the question is was this a pre judged decision another asking you is we have some very serious conflicts we have a proceeding where the village is protesting and the education district is complaining that this property doesn't it should not be getting an exemption and we have a zoning action going on where the parties the church who is claiming this is a church that is used primarily for church services and that is also qualifies as a parson because the pastor must live there we have all this going on at the same time we have this situation in the sony action where the same parties are basically giving conflicting testimony they're saying this is our property the village has no right to tell us we can't have private church services and at the same time the church is saying this is a church can work here and most of our activities here are church related and we're using it i merely so don't we have a real problem with conflicting evidence by the church saying on the one hand in the zoning this is our private property we don't have to get permission to have a church we don't use it says shirt and then we have the same church in this other proceeding saying the opposite so i guess my point is hearing officer had a lot of bad because normally it's presumed that these people that are airing these tax cases are not biased they're not prejudiced they're not like a rubber stamp snub the hearing officers decision to run it's the director's recommendation of director about that are you saying that the procedures do not allow for the director to basically grant summary judgment or or say as a matter of law or say nothing no more proceedings are and in there is his statement that the director opp revoked or whatever pulled out the withdrew the exact he also indicates that the that  impact his decision because in front of him at that time he had cross motions for summary judgment on whether or not they were entitled to the exemption is that correct that's what he said but all right well i just want i mean that's what he said ok whether we believe him or not he made that indication now after the a l j makes that decision the department approved it and recommended that the director approve it isn't that the actual proceeding with the director approved but it  going on or when the director indicated that he was revoking the the a l j had already had this whole matter in front and the parties at the opportunity to argue their respective positions through i don't know whether they had completed their arguments at the time they were in the process of doing is the final decision maker the director doesn't have to him or send secret signals to do anything underhanded so why why send out anything if if it is a fight you want it there is there's nothing in the record and it's our position that the superseded spirit is relevant if you like unprecedented situation where the department additionally granted this tax exemption on the have the taxpayer expense of discovery was taken including evidence for example that the taxpayer had dropped drawn across on the side of the photograph of his incorrect there is an initial package of the department asked for more information and i believe the photographs are in the second i guess the question is what did what would cause the initial decided place a seed to grant the exemption to begin with this was a very we created this institution that had put their letters from other churches while being that welcome welcoming this church to the community and i mean if you're a busy you know staff member of the rep in those papers was that a particular priest or reverend of the other george yes there was to that he lived on the property it was to the time that the original petition for off an exemption was issued yes but they exist when the initial when the initial grant of the exemption was issued that i believe that and there was a picture why didn't you just let the l j do its job because again it was the at that point where the barber want to do it it was a well meaning it perhaps misguided but well meaning everything just to realign themselves at that time they didn't feel like they could stand with his be followed before the day can reverse an exemption that's been granted counsel suggesting that due process rights were trampled upon no because the process evidence was submitted in this kit usually sometimes there's a hearing sometimes there's a motion for summary judgment just like in a court case this case went up on a motion for summary judgment the evidence was considered by the l g a he decided to think that the proved did not baby were bit unorthodox it was not is you know harald is it true that in the african second supplemental answer to the village of lake lots first set of interactive stories tested to by george michael on december first two thousand and eight he stated the applicant's second supplemental answers to the village of lake bluffs the first set of interactive stories said that he is employed by the armenian church of lake la he's employed full the pastor of st gregory the illuminated armenian heard he stated that he lives at a location twenty five forty six north harlem avenue in elmwood park and has lived there except for one year when he was on sabbatical in armenia since moving to chicago in one thousand nine hundred eighty and also in his statements which i believe and sworn to that he has never changed his address he's never lived at this property where it was earlier stated in the original african second supplemental answer that this pastor actually  going action where they don't receive here's our you know this matter was set for all argument do you know what the procedures are if there's an exemption requested such as this and at some point it becomes  apparent that there has been an actual occasion of those documents are you aware of any authority in the statutes it allows the director to take immediate action when there are falsified documents and the authority under the statute to take away an exemption that has been granted when the property no longer qualifies or w i can't imagine that there aren't statutory provisions or petitions that have falsified information in the request for tax exemption to state that someone lives there is a parson a member of a a long standing member of the church who then testifies swears indicates under oath that he has never lived on the property that that would give the director or someone within the department of revenue now there were two hearings were there not there was the hearing beliefs of someone it's another to make inquiries into the validity of the claim itself correct and you believe it's the latter read the former right i mean eventually i mean you got this stuff he they were entitled they were given the opportunity to present any evidence that they wanted to present correct they had every opportunity to for discovery that the evidence and they've again never suggested whatever test they would present that w let's make clear that i think we've expressed a great deal of concern over the material that was presented to whatever the heat to see was in lake bluff that got this armenian church an exemption to begin with when that including the photographs without the drawn cross and an aspirational photographs that really didn't reflect the real property it existed when the application was filed but that's that's a conclusion that somebody would make after hearing the evidence but the problem here is i don't think it's a conclusion i think it's a fact in this case and i don't think you're disputing and i think you're the one who called  aspirational these photographs and i think you it conceded that that that the cross was drawn at that photograph so the question is i'm just pointing out that there are major concerns that we have that  these sort of proceedings that you want to claim that aren't you give you some sort of benefit and because you rely on the outcome that the outcome could only be as valid as the information that was presented to begin with and when that information is not valid you wonder why we should well you also wonder why the proper procedures were followed by the department of white to follow its own rules and how often the director make a decision without giving any reasons for that saying any facts and then say well didn't really mean anything or really bad so early was a decision that was only a reviewing the final decision that was entered by the director after he approved the decision that kenneth yelping wrote but i'm what i question is he did have the your argument when he without due process and prejudging is pretty much just stamp this and i understand it well we also appealed for his yes premature decision nilly there's nothing in the statute that allows him to do that let me let me ask you one my final question that is assuming everything you are assuming you've made up your claim that the proceedings below were what they should have been procedures that the sanction or the penalty is that the exemption has just been for whatever period of time it's entitled to that there's really no review that's what you're that's what your argument is that because our procedures weren't follow because i didn't see any in the briefs that suggest that when there's a complaint of a due process violation or that the religious beliefs were examined the case teach us that perhaps the correct remedy might be a new hearing in front of a different office or for a new hearing in tulsa up but i'm not aware of any case and i don't believe you cited one