model is the difference between rates accrued as just unreasonable by the arizona corporation commission in two thousand and ten and the rates and a tax policy  policy resulted in just and reasonable rates for all other similar was situated and i mentioned just unreasonable a couple of times already because it goes uncontested in this case the plaintiffs have accepted or court looks carefully applies the rigorous analysis and finds that the damage model that was put forth by the planners with an expert which claims to calculate class why damages down to the very dollar was inadequate because it overstated the damages that can be recovered from the particular and i trust injury now that the reason why the method is invalid is not a question arguments about why that was or wasn't illegally valid model and so when the or this court was it said step number one the st thing we need to look at is look at these causes of action and see whether or not this is a valid damage method to produce cost why calculations damages in this case and so the court looked at the particular statutes they were in and willing to be interpreted taste law under those statutes and held the yes for to i have very little time remaining and i wanted i wanted but i want to i want to i want to rebut just very quickly this idea that the plaintiffs are asking this court to wade into the rate making process by just looking at the actual at the same time the commission also said that you were going to assert civil damages claims we don't have exclusive jurisdiction on that we understand you need to go to the courts that doesn't mean that the claims are any good or that you have three this is really just a challenge to is two is ruling denying their motion to dismiss and the answer were god was what my friend on the other side has said there is no free flowing a doctor in the just applies everywhere it is the regulator is sovereign whose law governs on this issue in arizona as everybody recognizes as not adopted the filed rate that so doesn't apply somebody take the regulators children hostage and and in force that rate with fact is that where somebody has done what they've done that corrupts the system not just arizona law it does indeed set a right and that is that is true but where the rate has been sapped by the means of this case bribery which corrupts the because the two thousand and ten rates were fine there was no problem with those and the only thing that happened was that although the mr johnson's efforts to get the rates changed in the meantime were unsuccessful until johnson utility than johnson write the regulators to get the two thousand and eleven inquiries the two thousand and eleven increase is the because ever term is efforts to get the rates changed after the two thousand and ten rates were unsuccessful as laid out in the district judge opinion until after until as a result of the bribery both the funneling the money on the property this is a unique case where it's not merely generalized allegations in a federal indictment it's very particular as and so therefore that there's ill gotten gains were released in treaty or change your class members is that right and so it doesn't really matter whether or not the two different rates are reasonable it's just that there was no injury because of the increase in  you don't get the ballot for that or you can say that's the measure of the damages from the bra and indeed one of the questions that you all have focused on is calculating the damages and comcast is a whole different comcast says that where you have engaged in any trust efforts on the cable market the after to figure out which neighborhoods were clustered with which others and how the damages would be calculated this is a whole different of damages in this case it's very easy to think that they want to say well it was reasonable anyway and the fact is structurally the taxpayers through has been rejected on the structural basis not quantity paying company you get your are right you don't get your taxes paid as a as an add on to that so structurally it seems hard to isn't that they will be able to defend the reasonability whatever cannot and there's a difference between the cases that say where there hasn't been a review or where the review has been in there or where there has to be some other sorry different those that might theoretically require a reasonable means test because the two thousand and ten rates were permanent rights they were on the two thousand and eleven inquiries obtained by bribery tha they held that that this was beyond their powers that the a c c does not go back and redo and look to past things they do go forward they will go forward but they do not go back to invalidate their past r and the monday case of that is where they said they didn't have jurisdiction over though that really the courts are the only place that and the appropriate place for someone to go under arizona law and particularity this is why this case is different from those in which there are sort of generalized things that say well they treat the regulators very nicely they wine and dine them and so they get better treatment is a case where the rate was the truth that right was f increases were rejected went into effect the rate was good all you have to do don't have to worry about reasonableness just eliminate the bribe or you measure it by the bribe different rates going forward which could in least theoretically tell you to move now past misconduct if they were to find good so what happens all the customers that pay the unjust rate how do they get their money back well and that's interesting because i think then you get to the excessive for example let's say in that case they look back and they said here's someone who gave us misrepresented you know we've been plugged into a formula and we calculated what we now see was the incorrect rate and we