perfect perfect ok the most important point that i want to make today is this i do not mean to suggest that plaintiffs could never obtain preliminary injunctive relief in this case only that the manner in which plaintiffs thought it was granted preliminary in december two thousand and fifteen plaintiffs who will county seeking mandamus in an effort to force will county to issue a variance so that claims of could obtain a building permit to construct a pole barn on his property the village intervened in that lawsuit ok and that was basically subject to earlier appeal correct correct and so that portion of the complaint was already decided  or correct so it's not not present you before the trial court should have it's the villages position that it is a closed case and that it that there was a judgment entered and that it is not against the village and this is intitled latest motion for entry of an order and will county to issue a building permit point if it's a stay the village of going broke on force and axing the plane just property until a court has ruled in this did it did ok i mean i'm just trying a simple trying to figure out simple facts so that basically the relief was granted by the trial court correct correct and there was an injunction entered against the until there's a word until in the caption mean anything yes until the court has ruled in this case and they rule medicaid's dinesh they ruled formally ruled on september th two thousand nine actually my main point in opposing this motion you know it moved to strike this motion because there is no complaint pending against the village which which motion did you move to strike i move to strike cletus motion for entry of a new order plaintiff presented is motion this motion this two part motion and set a briefing schedule on it the court the lower court stated virtually what i that see i think maybe you're really putting this all together and stern two things up trying to make something out of it now this will be the plainest answer whether i wrong on this but it was a conditional statement wasn't it by the caption do filed isn't that conditional until until it is so was that so when the court ruled on the variance earning the variance which you said is what they did do right correct well the so it was a permanent injunction it was more than the plaintiff even asked for many many procedural infirmities in this case and it's really a procedural argument that i'm making which is that there was no complaint against the village the villagers brought in on this motion they were in intervene or i should add that if i haven't added that already it intervene into this action and so we have received notice of this we went to court we asked for  schedule and i told the court that i intended to strike this motion because as a motion for a preliminary injunction it's just one sentence and it summarizes the elements that party needs to demonstrate in order to obtain case law that explains why this extraordinary relieve should be granted to a party and i explained to the court that there is no complaint and against the village and therefore it's really impossible  for an injunction to enter against the village so i stated the thumbnail sketch of my argument on september th in the judge entered an expedited briefing schedule because the village it was given a week to reply i move to strike this motion because it's an improper motion procedurally for a lot of reasons there is no complaint and substantively there's no substance to it so whatever well is there required to do so he could have done so he could have filed a new hole or auto action against the village and making you know updating the what it meant previously filed and starting a fresh new complaint because there is a new there were new facts underlying the annexation agreement but that was never done it should have been done and it could have been done and it could have been joined into just like it was done previously it could have been joined into this mandamus action against will county but it wasn't done so there is no complaint seeking injunctive relief on file against the village upon which point of could obtain a preliminary injunction that is a significant obstacle disregarding the fact that there is no substance to the motion it really is literally i have it here and it's three pages long and it's only in one paragraph that says plaintiff properties correct it's i've also asserted in my briefing that the plaintiff could have added the account to because we were in intervene or he could have added a count to his existing complaint against will county in that count could have sought injunctive relief against the village and stated the facts in support thereof but there is that was not done this is all done in a hurry timetable i think that in prose inappropriately incorrectly and a lot of procedural shortcuts were taken that cause the village to not be able to substantively ever respond to any substantive arguments made by the plaintiff about why is entitled to so i was not able to do that i had no choice when it was confronted with this motion but to move to strike it because there's nothing there's no substance to respond to now after i filed my motion to strike filed a response to my motion to strike when he filed a motion for the response to my motion to strike it puts some substance into his arguments but that's not appropriate here it's an opportunity for plaintiffs to defend what is being challenged i'm challenging the propriety of his motion and what's contained in it and the procedural infirmities about it and he doesn't respond to that instead he starts to make his arguments for the st time about why he isn't title injunctive relief and that's totally inappropriate now we have a situation where he files a motion that contains one sentence against the village i filed a motion to strike it and now he has filed what really becomes is motion for preliminary injunction and i have no response to that and then we have a hearing on it and i really fully anticipated that the court the lower court would strike the motion for to stay because this is totally inappropriate and i expected that and we talked about it in the in the lower court denied it this is not a proper motion for a preliminary injunction for all the reasons that i've stated and it could have been done there's no question at all that it could have been done and when i and things would have been brief properly and all the legal arguments would have been raised we would have had a proper discussion about the merits of enjoining the village from doing what is legally authorized  collateral attack again that's a judicial concept that's something that's done in the process of litigation what we have here judges is a lawful act that was enjoying without any complaint at the time that  correct the underlying were there the issues of about will county were briefed and there was a long delay in getting a ruling on that and when it came to plaintiff's attention that the village was going to move that motion bolingbroke then forced the next this property i'll be don't basically to us and give the notices it was required but what it did was then take the with that is we had eighty feet at the building setback line is required by the county word and says so and to create a one hundred and twenty eight feet so i think it was clear that the very end should have never been required  around the jurisdiction of the trial court and put us back d you know filing a koran so going through the whole motions of that when we so now when the common good an accession occurs that's really relevant to this case is it the same agreement the agreement has changed only slightly and  for the changes one is that there's no longer the condition precedence that they had written but the motivation and the fact that it's a sham is very clear from the agreement and i waited until i had the villages minutes from its meetings where they tell you what they're doing so if you look at the villages minutes st if you look at the detachment plat which is and they made it clear that they felt and they said that they did everything legally appropriate and proper and but we have to pass this detachment platt because we've been  and so they are and record saying that they're going back and they're engaging in the same type of activity which this court found was a sham and nullify the  property or the alternative denying the most substantially insufficient so his motion to strike is also a response to the motion to stay and so my response to him is totally appropriate my response and basically was not the same scituate ration as james what well it is the same situation as james one this was going out and the eve of the trial court and we've been fighting this case since twenty the next my client's property to remove my client's property from the jurisdiction of the trial court i thought it i mean it's very very clear that we should have to go through this again when they've already been found to have these improper motives and they're doing the same thing all over again and i don't have to guess about it because they're very blatant hypocrisy they tell you it in their minutes of their public meetings business whatever wants to do something but they've got either a law or a court decision that they feel is in their way so i mean isn't that why they hire lawyers to say well let's see if we can work around this some way and  and make it make another run at i mean that's why people hire lawyers we don't want to put bar association out of work so that in and of itself is what the legal system is all about and that so the fact that they're trying to get around a prior decision from this court doesn't make them bad does it their way that they did it was improper it's the same activity as in the  case let me ask a question that's perhaps not under the very issues but in the context of this controversy which you admit is not growing for quite some time the your client has achieved parents but maybe correct me if i'm wrong has obtained from the county because it's still county county jurisdiction property i believe they've received a variance to be able to put up a pull to apparently house cars or whatever that mr james collects  we still need to stay is the building permit was ordered ish now presuming the next day you change the jurisdiction how do i build my building under county ordinances under the appalling that's not going to happen i have to build my building under the county ordinances of will county and then use my building so i really don't have a secure situation until i have the building so we just got the permit in the middle of the pandemic and we don't have the building started yet but we have a year to start the building and we have a year to complete it and get the accurate sea permit which would be believing we'll have it dumped after that scenario then you know it's a different fact situation and i don't know what that would be if bolingbrook was trying to force an excess of at this time i can't guess well let me let me suggest in correct me again if i'm wrong because i'm not briefly that the point of this appeal is largely procedural it is that you cannot walk into court and say i i'm entitle to an injunction and that's all you need to hear about it it's not an appropriate way to do consults with its lawyers and decide well maybe we can do this a different way that conforms to the holding in james one and let's try that because there's nothing wrong with trying it again in print simple and that is exactly what the village did so it is not the same as change one the james one decision significant part of the holding related to the fact that comment could just opt out whenever they wanted to and i  may be initiation of contact with commented that can never be undone that happened that is not at all uncommon in annexations but that is not that standing alone could never be a reason not to or to notify an annexation it was all the other aspects of it and many of those were fixed the finality is a very significant aspect of it there is no ning which is another part of james one necessary for mr martin to file a complaint or some cause of action either joining it to the will county or having it is a separate action and it could have been done you know he's written a good  and if he had written it in the lower court and we had a fully brief that as it was written as if that was the thing the motion for preliminary injunctive relief we wouldn't be here today because it would be procedurally appropriate that wasn't strike i think the lower court made a significant error and failing to strike this motion because it's not a proper motion doesn't have any place any precedent under the law there must be a complaint and it must have some substantive