also who you are and who you represent court erred in it many of us from the cook county treasurer the treasury department consisting of a computerized generated treasury reports  in connection with that project they they a assign the developers no whereby they agreed that over the life of the project that the incremental taxes the increased incremental taxes the actual taxes would exceed the projected taxes of the extent that ninety thousand dollars with interest it's undisputed in this case that the actual incremental taxes that were collected by the village drawing the heights exceeded the projected taxes or the like the project that some just motion was for the co generated documents that are vacant in big us on their face and it's unclear what they demonstrate equipment generating the report that the read that the information is is being generated close in time to the actual calculations involved other various affected says the second district  they mean for example it says this there's a balance due that it says the amount due there are handwritten notes in the documents that are appropriately from the cook county treasurer's office that contradicted the electronic information in the documents so at the end of the day it's not clear what these documents mean or what they say and it's not it would be impossible for mr and right who works for the village to be able to take these documents and synthesize them and create some kind of an amount  due to the village the problem was that the plaintiff in this case failed to take a deposition of some of the cook county treasures office so that they would understand so we would all understand what these doctors purport to show what you know that gives me th know i think i think that i think the trial court got it wrong the trial court said these are business records of the village and therefore they're admissible that's not the test the test is whether or not they are business records of the public official and they're created in the ordinary course of business of the public that if there was evidence that would support that fact from the county treasurer that would be correct but there is no evidence in the record from the county treasurer to that effect  absolute that's absolutely correct wrong because that is not you cannot tell by looking the doctors what they mean do they mean what still owing they mean what's being paid why is their hand writing that contradicts the electronic information the document it is the plaintiff's burden on summary judgment foundation for the admission this evidence is no evidence or a rule that is followed i think by every court in the country the foundation is the duty of the proponent of the person introducing the evidence and clear the plaintiff completely failed to even make it make a try to lay a foundation instead  person trying to keep up the public record these records are kept now you're trying to say here are going his court that your clients were it would assume highly experienced the developers and business people don't understand the records of put together by the count reports as being required to be looked upon by the chief executive of the village and then the village as a do not and then there to submit these records in order to keep their ten appearance with the state of illinois and i don't deny it all you are that they that the public there is a dead they are that they still have to be the foundation laid for the document that may not be the case with a marriage certificate or a driver's license because on its face it's clear these are computer generated documents which there was no testimony as there were liability  deficiencies in those two particular years i suggest your honour's that the term of that note at least as ambiguous as to whether or not the calculation is done is done and you only and credit is not given for future periods or whether looking back it's done over the life of the project and therefore as i understood the law they could testify to that and then that would be evidence the jury would consider to decide whether or not they had actually guaranteed every single year and were never never given the benefit of any kind of a the surplus well rather they truly agreed here in january two thousand and ten which included all the records he in two thousand from the county treasurer and which mr penn right indicated the manner in which he get clear on this you statements mr enright have to be considered as factual you cannot defeat summary judgment based upon pleadings the  this case are very interesting as far as the answer is concerned this is all in there and the only defense to our complaint was the conclusion we don't own any money that's all they said if you if you read the answer they conceded that the note was side they conceded that was part of the redevelopment dream and there was no issue here ever raised as that's why we insisted i met no for any will payments and your honors if you know mr siegel realty effect also require annual reports indicating how much money is absolutely and that's what we did thousand and six mr genies the finance director two thousand and seven all of these letters are hidden of the record there in support of our money for summary judgment those numbers have never been more so this argument that he didn't indicate whether they were full payments or not is specious because it doesn't go to the facts in this case he  if you if you look at the august two thousand and five letter from dixon you'll see the spread sheets you see the portion of the county treasures records no who were recognized but we didn't see any affidavit as we didn't see any documents were keen mckenna said this was wrong but they knew exactly what was going on here and  transmitted for us to determine the incremental revenues which we defendants understood and they participated in the note i did not draft with their test consultants graft no that's not in the record but the fact of the matter is that they're there to fin sultans were aware back in two thousand and five  thousand a differences the first for the first several years there right that's because nothing was built nothing was built it was only if you look at the documents from how the treasurer's office which are a part of this record you exceeded course that we had to do it and really in order to pay off the principal and interest on the bonds that's why we insisted on this note and it was the men in the redevelopment leave it was amended four times because these folks never lived up to the construction schedule that's why this problem existed because properties did not go on the tax rolls because they didn't  brief as an example of the confusion there's nothing confusing about his records talks about they talk about what they don't know whether everybody paid their taxes or not as a dictated if they didn't pay the taxes then we got less money we assumed every right assumed everybody's going to pay their taxes he gave them the benefit of the doubt if somebody didn't pay the taxes or somehow the taxes reduced we assume that everybody pays the taxes which record about this i don't know i don't think there's little old men with green eyeshades city and high schools writing out the tax records as a county treasurer anymore maybe there were when i started but i don't happened but they turned over her records they turned over the villages letters to there to fix prints i was waiting i was waiting for somehow or other for that a public official who keeps records in the order course of their business are correct and attempt to them to show they could have done it if they if they really believed have opinions i think there's two thousand which was not appeal from found and generated the order her opinion was bringing that up is that the mr rudd siegel sort of village insisted on annual payments in fact that's not what they did at all in fact they didn't sent a letter to my clients until two thousand and five and they didn't bring this lawsuit to two thousand and eight until the project was long concluded and at what point in time the actual revenue is that were generated the incremental revenues from all the good work my clients didn't build in these projects exceeded the projected revenues so this is a windfall if in fact that if in fact the plaintiff is allowed to