and then was renewed he'd made it with the capacity at least twice before and then subsequently expanded and moreover there is testimony from the lamp post representative that they had every intention of continuing to operate quote unquote indefinitely that they planned another fact that the intended to expand give a rd time if i have my chronology current here would indicate that possibly what your client was complaining about thing that is so prejudicial to make that argument to a jury that you gain what do you expect when you go to the house next to a landfill and they came to the new sense why should they get anything here and i think that was critical in swaying the to not allow the long complaint book or the complaint logbook from being admitted into evidence i believe the defendant's claim that it was irrelevant because it didn't relate to your property and i testified on behalf of the defendant supposedly testified about places other than the plaintiff's property so why can't we as well and when he testified so the defendant was allowed to argue that there was no owners from all of these other locations throughout the neighborhood but then the plaintiffs were only allowed to testify that they experience voters on their property and were prohibited from testifying about any orders that they experience been different had they been permitted to hear that and i'm essentially you know what's good for the goose is good for the gander there's no reason that he and his expert should have been permitted to give that kind of testimony about all these other areas where the plaintiffs were not what they the fact remains the jury did hear that on the plaintiff's property the experience these issues and this was their case not their neighbors down the street immediately to hear but that's crap so not only did the jury hear the we what's the difference or negligence are reasonable and we can't reach a verdict how does that relate to your primary argument that they were confused the questions that doesn't mean  he considered the impact on the community and other residents and the complaints that community other residents had made that the judge had determined early that this is a property that and said that he considered complaints by the entire community and how order was migrated off the property as a whole they opened up the door to remodel testimony from our expert he said purpose because of what mr williams said but i'm still not allow testimony on all the other changes and in fact as we're going to do everything we want to get into additional information in what we were hoping inspections throughout the community and they log in they need terminations as to the level owner judge ortiz blocked us from doing that because he said that's not relevant we're not going to get into that this case is about the was really a doctor way of this was there is more of an engineering expert talkin about how things were not properly working career and correction and as a result something that he was jewish this analysis and then he said as a result of this these other things the way as we also stated this which is one data point in you know an entire case that we think the facts are overwhelmingly in our favor they only call on expert and in justice in the player set did they of the engineering school at university of virginia at dr benson who testified that he completely disagree with mr are doctors lawyers the jury have a right to to use a battle the experts say quite frankly the either intentional conduct or negligence that is why we had experts to say we are operating in this facility not only at the standard here but exceeded the standard here we had never expert parkman's out who's been  to you know put a cover every night and others to put forty thousand gallons of water each day to make sure that dust doesn't migrate there are and that's why the lake county health department it is empowering to inspect and there it's not pleasant they make noise and it's now but when they moved out of my neighbor's house it's not a problem because i'm there down here how could this be considered temporary when it's going on day after odors and other things that migrate from any landfill including their own closet right that that's true and so if they have landfills going to stay there and you tend to have evidence that it was operating and they didn't prove it now they're meaty smells and it's not all the time we cited in our briefs that the defendant said that the thousands of times they were able to go outside and enjoy their property take walks on the property have family a creature state to federal law two it cannot be cited permitted bill to operate without multiple levels of approval and three when the perfectly passing is reached it has to cease operations because of that it necessarily cannot be indefinite and it doesn't satisfy the other problem which is that they have a legal right to m and see this permanently changes the character of our neighborhood and my property values are down by a one hundred thousand dollars and then a year from now when the city of zion say should we expand this no you can't do that if they got hundreds of thousands of dollars because or negligently they file another law if we don't get the permit it's done it ceases so under these facts there cannot be economies and they still have a legal right to address or to redress any any problems put it doesn't become if it closes and use it possibly three years it'll reach capacity they don't just wave a wand and it becomes a lovely lake for the community or a golf courses that but that's that takes some time sure that does so just the cover does not accomplish you know on a flower there if there are still smells it emanates from the ground they don't cover every single piece of ground they don't cover underneath really goes to whether or not they get a level of the energy is different from what we can get the you know temporary since they had an opportunity to show all of the seven years that this activity that was occurring was in fact a nuisance call affected the nature and extent of the evidence that was presented which she believed should have been allowed in so far as  the i believe the way she characterize it was since it was deemed only to be temporary the trial court did not allow evidence which would have gone in a had it been raise that here i guess the issue is that you have only a vague they didn't make any objections after closing argument related to coming to the nuisance or to the issue of i think she said i said tr fleet defense but the fact that the land was acquired her prove after the nuisance generated activity began would be a factor in determining if the nuisance was actually we were absolute within our rights to mention at it was one because maybe one day possibly turn into a golf course and that's certainly something that happened in our view but then it would be on them to resign ahead as you when that would happen and how that would help the property value as opposed to what the players are currently experiencing well