get rehabilitation services have been harmed because of the unique nature of for advocates presenting once him an argument i like to take a couple of seconds to provide a roadmap of our individual arguments my name is that particular trip could be handled by the bus service even with difficulty but other trips may be so difficult that they prevented and what the judge here did was throw the baby out with the bathwater and so they that you were complaining about his not being able to get on a trip by trip basis as opposed to requiring that the service be provided at all times thank you he referred to restricted paratransit eligibility five times in his of original complaint to the district court again the sacramento regional is a transit provider they have to comply with regulations they have the knowledge to understand that section b was involved at this point of course for mission i sometimes i can't walk more than a block well clearly if you accept that there are going to be occasions where he is going to be prevented from taking a trip not everywhere an individual would go are going to be either the destination or th i get into what i think is the meat and potatoes of the argument the reason that thirty seven point one two three is the critical section is because it applies the l g it is the eligibility standard regardless of whether you're asking for it that's correct so we're kind of was he taken off of that well it's not in the record but these things are not forever in other words if you then deemed eligible in the past it doesn't mean that you're going to be deemed eligible for ever and my understanding is there has to be some take that's not correct he was not disallowed because he was shown able to take trips he was disallowed because he did not show that he met the eligibility requirement of category three and that he was prevented that you can plead yourself right out of court if you attach something it becomes part of your complaint if there's an inconsistency in their past document that that trumps what you said in your complaint here he's saying and i think what there's been great use on this one phrase that he says when i'm tired i can only walk a block but when you look to the physicians records that are the physicians reports that are so that it explains that as being when he gets tired it tourette's syndrome it aggravates motor tics that causes him to become a potential target of hostility or ridicule and when he's riding on the bus two problems with that one it has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to walk to or from a boarding location the fact that he's get aggravated and he's on the bus with motor tics that are that are exacerbated has nothing to do with coming to and from the other thing is he never said this when he talks about his ability to use the bus he never says in this complaint i sometimes can use the bus once or twice a week or i can only use the bus once or twice a week he says i use the bus once or twice  what well let's assume that that is true and we have to guess the physical exertion has exacerbated a motor tick rendering such a long walk extensively distressing and time consuming ok dismiss we have to liberally construe everything in this pleading that's not him and i heard you're nitpicking at that there to try to find some way to say well ok let's support what the magistrate judge did here but but the doctor is part of the pleading this letter is now part of the pleading if you think consistent with the allegation liberally construed that pleading in his favor not nitpicking and that may be the case but if you also look at the policy that when you attach something you to have to have our writing family rich and correct and then the issue is is a difficult or is it prevented and i don't disagree that based on the allegation there may be times when he had difficulties on the bus but the problem with category three and it is that it only deals with two and from a boarding location if you're on the bus and you got aggravated motor terrorists and someone may ridicule you for that not only is that something that could happen to anybody but it's also something  agree but when you look at why he why it's aggravating for him to walk a mile is because it aggravates motor text which caused him to maybe be ridiculed while he's riding on the bus so the actual doctor's doctor said that it's not ridicule he's not talking about ridicule on the bus he's talking about how hard the law but if you look like i'm saying if you put the other leg you look at the other letters excessively distressing refers to the distress he feels when he's on the bus potentially with the flowers other letters that explains why it is excessively distressing and time consuming certainly doesn't make it doesn't prevent him from using it it's certainly make it more difficult  use that term type the interpretive guidelines are very clear about what preventive travel is and is not a case of preventive travel can be made not only where travel is literally impossible someone cannot find the bus stop someone can wheelchair through a foot of snow or up a steep hill but also where the difficulties are so substantial that a reasonable person with the impairment related condition in question would be deterred from making the trip that is part of his complaint i don't think that those letters have played him out of court because i believe those letters also show the court his disability they show the court that there are times when he can