avoid the consequences of its constitutional violations or otherwise to avoid a common belief it's not akin to our fundamental sense of order of liberty to process or a sense of justice or try as you are just from that since th that were that after the decision the city continued to enforce the statute and did about eight hundred i believe in twenty eight hundred forty s and little by little it's wendell down but the spike the fact saying it wouldn't occur they continued in public record shows to continue to enforce the statute and how about any changes in law or not that i'm aware of that would have affected our class other than to continue the conduct those are the only facts that i'm aware client's injury here my client's injury is the fact that she was forced and deprived of due process they find her without a proper hearing much like they suspend someone from a school without a proper hearing and they were considered that was considered the damages but the problem here is not so much necessarily my client's damages it was the city's response to that action and what i mean by that is once my client was damaged and complained to the federal court the city non s vacated the judgment and then claimed that because she didn't pay the fine she has no injury and there is no stamp and that's where i earlier stated that leaves the city unrestrained and it basically makes that there's no excessive fines clause there's responsibility to the city but your client still needs to have an injury for the case to go forward what is her injury here is you know if the case list ultimately non student she didn't have to pay anything she never paid any connection with that what's her injury in the case the injury that she suffered was that she was subject to a prosecution that was arbitrary and not statutory authorized it was no different than an individual setting their own court house that they're in school acting fine without jurisdiction or authorization from the government she was there one step pursued your right to be free from excessive fines and to have those procedural due process hearings at a notice and in the end to have a hearing at a meaningful time in a meaningful pr there the excessive force claim was individual to that one person and it wasn't necessarily considered to occur again there you couldn't say that excessive force would happen again you have to prove that it wouldn't happen again and that was a different case here here what we have is whatever our conduct is the response was the complaint conduct the challenge condo of the illegally enforcing and the and converting fines from the county in the state and so when the city stopped doing that after being challenged the voluntary same doctrine plays in but it wasn't simic spurting to show that she would never violate the traffic law again it was the city's burden to she told that if someone was to violate the law we won't enforce it this way again but doesn't that someone have to be your client you know what we're saying is whether it's my client or another client we c voluntary sation doctrine kicks in and there's no question of injury or move in this because the reason that the courts and all the federal courts in the united states supreme court had that doctor and is to prevent the government from being unrestrained or even a private party  when the doctor and says the point to file suit and if the defendant ceased to challenge conduct it's their burden to be told that their conduct will not happen again and that the courts aren't deprived of the jurisdiction to look at the legality of the practice what conduct are we talking about the conduct is this city was limited in enforcing the city was given authority from the state to enforce that certain state laws in ordinances subject to certain it what you would say restrictions one of those restrictions was you cannot administer it if we enforce traffic violations or moving violations that are under the state law so what the city did was instead of sending those moving violations like cell phone from one from an access what the state law provided the maximum fine for your fourth offense or be there after was one hundred fifty sixty one from one hundred to five hundred by doing this they did not transfer over the cases to the city to the circuit court who would then report repeat offenders to the secretary of state that made the roads more dangerous it also put in a sense insurers and people who are insured the public at a risk because they're insuring people not knowing their actual track if you're straight on top of that the the clerk are supposed to collect the fines that are sas and distributed them to the county and state the trauma on the highway safety fine other things like that which also have a nexus with federal match grant funds because of the county and the state puts money into it by git and the federal government matches that money but if the money is diverted to the city by not following the rules and legally enforcing the entire public suffers and that's what i opened up with whether the injury is there with they did was monsoonal and come to the court so that they can keep escaping in doing this and what will happen if this decision isn't reverse is that they will enforce these laws again convert the money that's really needed or divert the money that's really needed by the state in the citizens and then replied to this very decision and say no injury because we think it didn't non student or return the money that we took and at that point the government is entirely unrestrained it sounds like you're claiming an injury on behalf of their argument that the fallen terri's station factor and requires the city to prove that it will never happen to your client again or that it will never happen and you well given that my client filed a class action and requests for the classification i would say it the complaint of conduct so actually it's what it obviously whatever the complaint of conduct be the supreme court all the circuits sat not just they just limited to the complaint conduct s so how it relates to a point to for any party i don't know but they said that the burden of this to show that the complaint conduct would not occur again sol the conduct here was the u s government force meant the violation of due process the violation of the eighth amendment and again one major difference also is in the four hundred superior the rules of evidence aren't the same they do the entire proceeding there without the officer being present whereas in the circuit court you have the right to cross examine the officer in their search procedures that are there so again  this decision it should be reversed because this decision violates our point of mental sense of ordered liberty and justice basically you can't have standing because you don't pay the fine well that means no purport personal or have the ability to access the court and challenge it if the city new that was presented at all there was nothing new so there are those are the arguments that are being made on appeal in your view the same arguments that were made for the prior panel on this court ye