dismiss which is reasonable but that's ok there's a lot of an architect's nature going on in this case so you haven't seen the bri deficiency letter that our court issued i did not say i would have handled that immediately so all i can say is i would ask for leave to file the reply if the court we can do that very quickly always stay within the standard of care of lawyers we don't prosecute peals before we see a judgment and i just think i mean there is a sanctionable component to prosecuting appeals devoid of a legal basis and there are remedies available to plaintiff lawyers called motions to reconsider and in this case the court waited twenty two months before or afterwards and that's just a very troubling place to be we were waiting a lot and i will say this is one is mandatory that it needs to be filed within fourteen days or period after hour after hour statement they did not and you know it's one of those procedural arguments that people make they say well i want you to follow this rule don't follow that role so it please ignore  failure but don't ignore plaintiff's failure that kind of concept and what i would say is on balance as to that those two rules again the walker court stated oh by the way no one was following that hundred fifty day documents statement r is mandatory in that situation but not yours let's assume you apply the rule to us we've already had great are we we've already substantially articulated every position that we could argue in all of the briefing that occurred prior to can argue it now i think that my argument with low from the briefs that are already on final of which there was a substantial amount of briefing and i guess my argument would be yes you could allow for the for me to summon up two seconds and say something ok i'll try to sell some of what happened to my clients was an outrageous series of events relative to officers conduct and what happened to them was their hispanic gentleman having met the first prong met the second prong their fear was reasonable quite specifically said that said that and there is no contest procedure that the defense will not set their fear was unreasonable what they're now saying as a matter of law a year and a half a stool and i just can't believe that anybody can say anybody who just walks down the street and lives and breathes in the chicago land area or hispanic an officer stretton them not just with the initial component don't you dare call watching it who in their right mind would not be terrified for their family asset in the complaint and for themselves for their last how can somebody say as a matter of law at the complaint how can somebody say thirty year and a half was too long meaning a year and a half there steps limitations expired especially where what occurred in this case as alleged is there was a huge article that came out in the guardian relatives back time that occurs and and hundreds of people have experienced ok guardian article comes out and then twenty three days later we concept behind walker versus whether sperling you know we don't want people wasting their time filing briefs exciter i'm never going to be corrected in the beginning and in essence the walker court forgave everybody for their noncompliance with the  prejudice but interestingly there is no judgment entered the judgment was entered twenty two months later so yes it said dismissed with prejudice but that was done the judgment was that of twenty two months later and it's clearly within the standard practice of lawyer if you about but the f b i filed that report stablish teamed up since two thousand and eleven heck of a lot of bad stuff we're going to chicago by police officers that makes a pretty well established fact we hear about the news all the time and people have a right to consideration what's their thought process what's the objective reasonable person on the situation be experiencing at that time you know and so what would the objective objective plaintiff be considering it with the knowledge that the plaintiff out and in that context to look at what what the plaintiff w