bet the court found that there was vagueness ambiguity and gave it an opportunity to amend it with facts that if they if they could clarify fire but the court was wrong in its assess could to satisfy what it was trying to understand was missing from its st the man complained about much much help from the court in its in its over the council could i ask you to address the specific question of the rules on  this this this does touch on the notice you received two for taking judicial notice of touch on that because i can't there was an on premise sign that was built and there be there was a law on par strips rubies on par strict scrutiny the problem with that decision is if strict scrutiny prevails in this forum then that breach of contract really is not valid because it was premised on the idea of whether or not it had the right to build these signs on and whether the ordinances that are a challenge in this case are unconstitutional the court ordered that that sign be removed within i think eight days during the  period the strict scrutiny as takin the sign down to the base goal and is still within its period of time to appeal that decision and is and is likely going to appeal that pleadings i think that appeared in the nd many complaint after the sign was the sign was permit it to be built ok that's very important stamps i was permitted it went up and just before the top cap or the rectangular piece of you if you're picturing a billboard in your mind was placed on the city came a slap to stop work order on on the on that sign to stop that the stop work order when they were supposed to identify what it is that they'll that that is wrong with it they cited a code section which is nothing more than the title so they cited i think it was eighteen point one six and when you look at eighteen sixteen it has one word signs so the violation of the the alleged violation that three of the stop work order was nothing more than a word signs and through the trial and cross examination of the city i was the trial attorney in that case through the through the through that process what we learned is they say that a city employee was called by a senior manager at the city and was  over from his home go over and put the stop work order he was not given a reason why or bases sport he was just get something on there we'll figure it out later and this is why that the strict scrutiny of alleged that  amounted to a type of prior restraint and that's exactly what it was they didn't want them to get get their socking up in communication going but that's where we stand giving it as you know certainly standing because you have it has leases it has an intent to build signs it has an intent to have a speech some some noncommercial some commercial and it had it found it frivolous to get go for a permit because when the op was served strict scrutiny went to the city to ask for a permit explaining that these the signs would contain what a permit for noncommercial speech they were denied and told they would be getting one so applying for any permits with that would have going forward this lawsuit would have been a  not being allowed to build and express speech it was injured by having your speech suppressed and of course monetary damages by not having revenues add up on a question that turns miller asked earlier regarding standing so let's assume you have an injury connected to the on promise regulation and i'm struggling on the redress ability part because any relief that we would give you under the on premises rules is not going to fix the problem of the premises banning this and it seems that the on premises bin is really sort of at the heart of your client's business model so right so then how do you have how do we fix anything if we look at on premises rule if the restrictions if the prohibition of print science is only for certain speak us and there are other speakers that can put up signs but they can put anything on that sign they want then you have an unconstitutional or dance or literally a licensing scheme it's not just one such words they're licensing scheme and if it's unconstitutional th strict scrutiny and should be allowed to put up signs because others are there exemptions and those exemptions allow them to speak anything they want so the for example the hospital can certainly speak and can wants becomes content based it's not just it's not just of location based because they speak in whatever so without have without being able to show that they can meet strict scrutiny as to why that distinction should be allowed and the city certainly never put forth one well even if it may i think there's some question as to whether it's content based but even if we agree with you on that isn't it still it's a restriction on commercial speech as an a because the condition of our premises display is one that's advertising or promoting commercial interests so doesn't get intermediate scrutiny under central hasn't under the substitution you can it you can have other speech you can you can have not you can have not you can have noncommercial speech as well but the speech that is subject to regulation as an off premises advertising display it is only going to be commercial like to start with the st main point which you kind of touched upon which is the requests for the dish and noticed it was filed ten days ago and that was are in regards to as mr stein pointed out the judgment that issues in the state permitted to take judicial notice is due to set of facts and notice the judgement and under dos and be mahoney and take judicial notice of the state court orders accountable i'm saying we agree with you that we can fix traditional methods what does that mean for the so what it was it means for this case is one thing i want to highlight a strict scrutiny media in their own appellate brief states that they are an outdoor advertising company they don't purport to own any real property they typically are in the business of entering into licenses and ground leases with the owners of real property and what they essentially do is a direct billboard and they get a fear license fee and they managed to do so for it so really to the point you were getting at with mr stein the off premise code partially dismissing the nd amended complaint they did a standing analysis applied to lose one factors and stated that strict scrutiny had standing based on the fact they had three existing signs on odd fellows a real property and  dismissed from the lot seems they were dismissed from the lawsuit at that point a specific ition ensued and they wanted to take to start a sign there last remaining sign d on their property which as you mentioned was an on premise sign which because of an on premise burden under a stub you slashed p b s st city of dallas to show the that they have standing and they must continue to show they have standing for each point and that summers the earth island and what they really kind of fail to do now is this judgment has been she's taken away the property interests of strict scrutiny of that signing they no longer have the property interest of that sign and i noted that mr stein stated that perhaps they might appeal but it's the city's understanding that the time to appeal has lapsed that order was entered april th two thousand and twenty filing was put in place and they had a certain amount of days to appeal and that time period has lapsed my understanding is two fridays ago i confirmed i don't have the exact dates in front of me and i can provide that support but george clooney has not sought appeal on that so that's final they no longer have a contractual property rights that  so now really i mean under appeal here the city would say under your standard of the noble review standing the city would argue that strict scrutiny really doesn't have standing now all they have is the future existing signs that they might may put up but the three signs that they actually had in the ground which were all of those properties have been removed and also has removed itself in this lawsuit at the same time in addition strict scrutiny is seeking from you as as you mentioned part of their and i would argue they're not a landowner those three signs are gone and under the announcers of lawyers one thing really lacks standing and this tape is moot for lack of actual injury there's nothing you can do to judge one second point of actually giving any relief it's far too speculative the the city argument there it will if i understood mr signs are going to maybe be a misunderstood i thought he was arguing that because the specific ordinance story and so i can address that so through the briefings there is only some specific sections of code that were challenged and perhaps i should say at odd fellows that the real poppy owner was it was a major player and dismissal and during that time all of the court's orders and so if you look at their order on the st amended complaint and then you look at their order for the nd amended complaint and those are on the record you know on volume one the st minute the one who filed for the permit they have the right to challenge the on premises code and there there is five different provisions that the court granted leave for them to challenge issue there and the court actually of the city addressed those were still party in the case so the city addressed those against odd fellows and there that the city argued that hey these are not content based discriminatory provisions or deface lee content neutral and i'm happy to walk you through specific provisions if you like because there's a couple  distinguish between services sold on site and those d sold off elsewhere so it's really trying to compare apples to oranges and is trying to kind of confuse the language of the code to create a false  you know unconstitutionality of the city sign code it just doesn't exist it's not there and i thought the district court did a great job in its orders and i know that there's a lot of grief in this case and you know to the point real quick mr stein said that you know that there was a prior restraint in the st minutes of play quickly just to just address that is that you know the city are argued that if if if appellant felt strongly about that dismissal you know they could have stood on their complaint they couldn't sought to get a final order and appealed their st amended simply but they did not they moved forward they answered the complaint and they alleged more claims you know on behalf of oddfellows is premise sign owner as an on premises land owner with you know standing to bring challenges to the city's on premises sign codes and then it brought certain challenges to strict scrutiny for its off premises  basis and that is where the court kind of went methodically through its order dismissing the nd amended complaint that was twenty seven page complaint that they filed and the court issued an eighteen page order going through breaking down three causes of action the code and after a permit for the same has been issued by the building officials so they would have to come in and apply for a building permit so i mean i get that i get that they need a permit or that apartment i have to happen before one of these signs get built but that doesn't tell me is entitle to apply for the permit so i mean if it's strict scrutiny oh most of the sign which it says it does has a lease with the land owner it owns the physical sign why can't it go in and get a permit f premises so are you talking about the start a sign that no longer is their property i'm just talking generally is generally yeah ok so and that would be because you would need they would need that property owner permission and i guess working with the property where they could come in with their lease and kind of help facilitate the application of an apprentice and presumably that could have happened in this case three because i believe it was on board at least  start correct so there was nothing inherent in the code that would have prevented strict scrutiny from being the applicant for the permit assuming that they had the permission of a real popular then why does it need to be and i would just clarify simply strict scrutiny is involvement in the application process with a landowner to get that signed permit would still subject for example in this case the there ruled that strict scrutiny was ordered to pay the notice of violations c s that had been imposed by the city on behalf of so to your point because of the ground lease agreement that they had  they went to whoever these owners of this land is and worked with them and came to the city and sought a permit they said fill out a sign application that and see go through the steps to get a sign and on premise or yes for example in the stoker sign or it's the start of a sign for some reason strict scrutiny is name was in on it they had they hired sign crafters another company that engages in i don't i can't i don't know i say i don't know if that was alleged that it was on that whether it would be any particular symes on premise or i promise you it would depend on the circumstances of the lease but we have we have alleged that we have seventy eight leases minute for my portion of the that although the city would ban all strict scrutiny is built with words it doesn't ban all billboards and it doesn't ban for example special bent billboards campaign signs which could be on premise a case that just came out of the th circuit yesterday which we will supplement under your of the locals i'm referring to the horseshoe case