think we should be particular about the issue here because obviously it's background but one of the things so your stand you're complaining about is the district trial to go through figure out who's been inconvenienced and explain to me why the district judge so people can either be there for their civil trials or they can allow their agent their lawyer to be there and represent them secondly i don't understand why if there was some medical prejudice that we are to second guess it and notice i'm not saying what i have decided one way or the other but we're asking did the district judge come to him somehow in the boundaries of rationality to begin your  however if you look at the comments that were raised by the project and mike in the course of my career and i'm paraphrasing although i've done over at least thirty six trials and never in my thirty six trials have you seen judge carter men  for the court to look at because there was no testimony what was presented was by opposing counsel and opposing counsel is not should not be able to present to testify on the behalf proposing counsel presented what was a you all both no one here everyone all you want is no one here in chicago but there's nothing to stop me from saying i'm in miami and if you didn't know any better you would believe that i'm in miami why because my instagram my social media told us that that is not fact social media it you know what you call compelling you've got prejudicial you know whatever label you want to put on it but just because it's unsavory bolt on the other side doesn't necessarily mean you've got a four or three objections well when you look at what occurred on that bus days later led to the battery that was alleged apparently drawn this talking about the battery incident they're talking about how to roll as they're talking about how she was dragged out of her room they're talking about what he did i don't know why are repeated requests for continuance mr tabor did not want to come to chicago because he feared for his safety to the high level of gun violence and he violated the sentencing procedure the settlement procedure that set up so it was against that over the northern district of illinois jury selection was going on mr williams was representing the judge feinerman that my client will be here tomorrow which turned out of course to be false so it's against that backdrop i think you have to evaluate the future and the only a valuation i think  suggested this whether the factual findings were clearly erroneous and the judge then somehow acted completely outside the bounds of discretion it seems to me that the judge to the contrary acted completely within its discretion concluding district judge say functionally the second day of the trial is just too late yet to have a continuance and normally we would say sure you know you've assembled the jury from all over finding now but if you have additional information you want you to consider so it's not clear to me the writer think he shut things off or just because he was angry came to an unsupportive finding of fact on the group to the contrary he said if you have additional affidavit about just the medical procedure that was performed the root canal so i think that doctor provided something that indicates a root canal future would provide what was never forthcoming though it was an affidavit under oath for mr taylor that he intended to hotel for what was projected to be a six to seven day trial where his testimony for the defense really would have come at the end of the trial it's also important to recall that he was actually his testimony was introduced to the deposition testimony which introduced the judge a finding of fact that if he had shown up you probably would have been the worst witness for the defense because there would have been so many contradictions exposed he would i've been required to testify to his wealth because punitive damages were at issue and he had refused to answer those question so what were the record is just crying out that this was a tactical maneuver that is now being repackaged for your consumption some sort of the cranky judge when in fact the judge i think behaved very reasonably very appropriately sexual battery case in which mr taylor denies that the battery of curved it is raining the victim said it did occur and so how was that point to be sorted out by the jury this is the first interaction between the assailant and his victim reality of their social drama i guess inherent in them in the situation public fortunately for the jury in this case they were able to see the facial expressions of mr taylor they were able to see what he says there's been some suggestion that you know what exactly what she talking about you know the quote was she said my vagina was quote not for you to touch close quote and that was part of the discussion that occurred you'll notice as you already have from viewing the case that there is no directed niland that there are there are you know that the a woman and don't talk about this various other responses not directly denying that the we took place and in a case where the central issue is whether the battery took place it's obvious to see why judge fi n said this is extraordinary probity now what is the prejudicial effect i did it's still unclear to me reading the brief from the other side i understand this might be harmful to the defendant's case but what i don't understand is how it would be unfairly  his brief saying it was a one point one million dollars verdict the verdict was one million one hundred thirty thousand one hundred dollars and it was comprised of eight separate components one of the components was a defense verdict that was for a past normal life the jury elected toward zero dollars last quarter you sure normal life there were five hundred thousand and this is repackaged in the defense brief and so that was some kind of emotional distress but actually i think the record makes pretty clear that was lost income or more precisely  administrative well being that business also collapsed so i think what the jury decided was it was a business up and running and if you conservatively say maybe ten thousand dollars a year would have come from that business over the course of a lifetime mortality tables were entered into five hundred thousand dollars so that piece of the verdict is not an emotional distress piece that's an economic damage calculation piece which i think it means if you're starting to look at you know comparing other verdicts you have to look at you know lost business opportunities rather than for doing so because the court cases that are issue have not even been cited by mr taylor so we haven't had an opportunity to confront the arguments or if you want our position we believe that the the case of name from the court in two thousand and six was correct this court said that to engage in some sort of comparison would we essentially involve a substantive decision under yuri then that would be controlled by a theory lobby car of illinois law because they would be says the two other cases that are out there aplin and trotsky johnson are both bench trial cases and in a bench trial i think a federal district court judge very well might be required by rule fifty two the rules of civil procedure to to provide the basis for the reasoning including other comparative verdicts that are out there so with some point you're going to have to decide what this case probably isn't the best vehicle because judge feinerman anticipating that there were competing points of view on that said look either way you go still rooms there presented to me i gave it to the judge after is on or made his comments that he did in the record there are further hotel rooms were provided all the hotel rooms did match up with the state and the not amount of people as well as the and what he would say anything if he was accused of that and what he said the page of the appendix page thirty eight was i would just i probably wouldn't say anything i would just think that's a little approx so he states in his deposition he wouldn't