pursued how do you mean how did i assume that the court the court below would have remained where it was on that issue i mean that was a lot of case at that point undisturbed on appeal the if you were with well there's not the trial level that the state level had not allowed any evidence on the issue of the time of defenses and there was no record so i would argue that the reversal was full and unqualified and that there's nothing to say that what would happen in the trial  talking about what happened to little what does that prove if the evidence was presented that begs the question as to whether or not the district court ruled on the issue or considered the evidence rejected the evidence that that's the determination that was made below and the california supreme court had to live by that just like this court has to live by the termination that it was actually because we don't have to live because you find it clearly erroneous clearly erroneous affidavit from like a whole date like to a few hours was modified yes and so we don't have i guess i'm concerned that the record is not sufficient that this was a full chosen to do so one was to ask for a statement a decision at the at the u t stage the other one was at the federal district court stage when the courts did tell me why this wasn't actually litigated they could have put on any evidence they wanted and i think there's a third way in which they could have taken this on if they really thought that this was not fully and fairly litigated at the unity stage they could have appealed that issue in the state  back to that and i think judge tribe focused on this that the in the in the state court where when the tenants appealed to the appellate division they did not assert any of the discrimination issues if you look in appellant opening brief which was the only thing that was filed in that case which is in tab three of our supplemental excerpts of reckon you will not see any mention of discrimination issues so the the they chose not to argue because maybe there was more you know i don't know they chose not to argue that it was not fully and fairly litigated at the u t level even though they made that exact argument with regards to rent control issue judge based focuses on that in this case the judgment was reviewed on appeal so it's the plans were afforded the opportunity to raise the defenses and complain if they felt was one of the the lower courts treatment of the discrimination complaints claims there for the record supports a conclusion the affirmative answer is we're l result by the judge will consider that the judgment at the uni judge could not have granted possession to the tenants unless he resolved the discrimination issues you have to resolve all those affirmative defenses or you cannot on rent control and not on the and and and the fact that they didn't reach the discrimination issues because they weren't even appealed means that that partial reversal does not sit the case at large  period court here court which by the way is important because the appellate division doesn't issue opinions it issues judgments so in fact another way to see a final judgment here is that this appellate division rendered a judgment not an opinion that judgment can be on california once the eight hundred sixty five supreme court case was declined to be followed i'm not following you when you say it was introduced somehow that creates some kind of a disability what do you mean it was introduced but not whatever i consider your hon