proceed with your argument  and the three cases are nominally considered twenty thirteen t o v eighteen one thousand and twenty the candidates are for the high school district to a board which was composed completely of public members appointed by the circuit court by circuit court order and essentially in all three objections it was a very straight factual argument that the now many papers hearing in january thirteenth of twenty thirteen evidentiary hearing on january twenty eighth at that evidentiary hearing there was three witnesses out before i get into the actual hearing the electoral board's opinion was brought  he recused himself and got transferred to miss kerr the judge kirby and the attorney stepped up and said i'm leaving i represent miss marr's i'm waving argument i'm not the question is did ms lawrence her attorney appear before the circuit court and confirm that yes and that's was going to get to look at the record that was filed unfortunately didn't include the transcript from in front of ju his opinion that they don't have to file an appearance or answer mr taylor leaves ultimately the matter gets transferred back in front of or out of judge possibly all over to judge kirby unbeknownst to mr taylor and now without hear any evidence on yes or no she had the record did she hear you have it did anybody bring up the issue before is there anything in the record it says that she heard something trial record and by that i mean and i do want to trust as fully and clearly she had all the transcripts of the three cases for the three evidentiary hearings that were held on january twenty eighth the argument which became confusing and i recognize everything of the twenty five cases that were heard by the thought an electoral the three cases in that group were three transcripts the exhibit was exhibit number one of candidate which was a copy of issue because lots of things that a trial judge might have before and he just said it was huge and there all the the she would she didn't say she read all everything why would she even go through that because she's concerned about the issues  so you're getting us to make a determination when the trial court there's nothing trap working in the hearing before the trial court in the opinion of the traffic court orders of the tri and if he's going to moshe strike a spring or for record in support of it it's his responsibility and the supreme court rules i have it i'm well you know i moved to try to put this back in but it is literally falling off at pages twenty one of the transcript we may all agree on an opinion but we still have to sign an opinion on it but in this case they have to sign it open meeting the senate to approve that right they have to approve the right and that is you know in an open meeting i don't see that as being fifth circuit case fifth district case two thousand and three and i'm kind of doing this on the fly i don't normally do this like this but short timeframe and the fact that things are filed literally about twenty four hours ago  this board the liberty deliberated in public voted in public drafted an order reflective of their of their fold and it was issued in public they reconvene reopen the meeting on ten if you want to look at it but that says that the decision of a majority of the electoral board to be a final subject to judicial review has provided the electoral board must state its findings in writing and must state in writing which objections if any going to sustain the copy of the decision shall be serious upon the parties to the proceedings and open proceedings before the elect open and open an electoral board meeting you do not need everybody present to actually reconvene from a recess during an executive session and just hand over an order their handing over order a member was there it was signed the member said in open court and open proceedings back on the record in eighteen nineteen twenty we have signed the order here is the order in full compliance i think but there's a difference here if you're they merely wanted to executive session somebody came back on say here we signed it granted a week later we signed it here you go open meeting nothing on a board everything is on the record like i say it was it wasn't even  only comes later they have to preserve things to raise that this was something that was not preserved they did not find to be such a critical event the council even appeared on february first they held an open meeting ordered an open some issues about bias all this well and none bias thing we've got three public members completely unrelated to this board and whatever tribulations and trials are going on in there so you've got three independent witnesses three independent board members looking at three witnesses and two of them testify about simplist that very much in detail page after page of testimony it's the testimony is that much they got from eighteen into nineteen in from eighteen in one thousand and one it's the same test very clear a local election official and persistent he shows up hands on each over they are unbound he stamped in a certain way very clear of course mr williams controversy interestingly enough when he controverts it he then controverts of stuff he says he had them with mr gibbs she handed them to her he had with her just a few minutes before he puts the clips on yet later on only the thir his case he brings a photo that one of the members mr bush says you contradicting yourself he said you just put it out a few minutes before but now you tell us you've got photos showing all these clip of is the limited jurisdiction all of that mean she can put findings and dictate in her order but her jurisdiction is limited she's only permitted under the election code expedited schedule their brief filed yesterday two days ago i got last night at six forty five raises issues that are also before you want to know the collateral to  there there are non responsive outside the skull i mean some of this stuff is relating to a chancery case still i'm going down the street in a prison as they tried in front of the a pub and for the circuit court which we're not talking about they tried to supplement the record with time sheets of one of the councils they they try to at this level they've added other things and they bring up issues for the first time i feel we're just strictly i mean i'm trying to keep it in this little box and the fed is somebody i can't help that but that's the left part of the case and having a few of you you start over fresh you're only here through rule on whether or not you're right the electoral orde abuses discretion at the i think it actually quoted judge kirby's view of the case a little bit throw everything at the law instead of say we have this decision here the transcripts a lot of look like about an hour long hearing all these cases each thirteen e b eighteen nineteen and twenty and find that these candidates do not appear on the ballot th say you should follow appearance or that's all right in the judge did rule in this situation that the that the object or both of them were default now although we're only dealing with a burned out more is here they were in technical default relying and what with them we're like well if they're waving argument then they should first of all follow the clearance but that also strengthens our position because then they have no argument to present to this court if they had an argument then they should have before the trial court his job is to review the electoral board's proceeding do the hard work of going through the transcripts going through the evidence making sure that there is a sufficient basis on the record to support the electoral board's decision so in this situation this trial page eighty three she said that she would enter an appropriate sanction of sanctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion standard so that's for a fundamental question is ok well is this a sanction or is this another type order i believe in the situation because she never force and effect when the relevant time judge kirby notice than that and in my rule to show cause to say well we still don't have a record please file the record it's best of no problem haven't you by four pm they never were able to do that so we don't get to the merits of this case simply because of due process issue of not having a record before the court that is full complete and accurate though but going back to the initial argument of that there was no which second keating is one fifty five philip thirty seven seven for this one thousand nine hundred seven it very clearly says respondent subsequent failed to preserve the issue no testimony or evidence on the point was says an argument or issue not presented at the administrative hearing his bar and then it goes on to talk about the trial court proceeding how it should have been raised at the truck because that's the job of the trial and it would open the floodgates if all of a sudden well there's a loophole now that says you never heard it right here right here on paper right right and that's it's and that's the big that's the ultimate issue but we can't even get to that the other argument that i did a search was the latter is argument which was ruled upon in the electoral board matters that does say case and proust you work with others i've cited so you know from a fundamental point of view this issue is not properly before the public court for even a ruling in the event that this court does fine and give them the benefit of the doubt to say ok well let's look at the issue well then we have to get to the second question is was there any final written decision as required by the election code and i believe taken that of the guidance from sinkers that says well statutes must be read argue that all under twenty eight this electoral board went into executive session and then on the time the first came out of executive session i mean that doesn't happen first of all second of all the record i mean the agendas don't show that i mean that's just ridiculous to even consider that but it is carol support so like reports are not allowed to go into executive session because they are listed under section two for the executive session exception they are able to take this under advisement in closed session so there's either a there's a contradiction here i'm presuming that the electoral board follow the open meetings act and follow the law i'm presuming that they did not meet in secret at some undisclosed time date location between january twenty eighth of february first ok then we have february first comes up and says well we've got one person shows up and we don't have a motion a second or a vote to approve the written decision so there's a question th the first well if that was the case they would have to have that written opinion on the floor yes there was a general discussion of some sustained order not this far as the objections they did not go forward with the requirements of section board that's a draft if it's in my analysis i mean taking a cynical feel then this board violated the open meetings act by having a meeting some point between january twenty eighth and february first which would have been a close meeting which would have been in violation of the open meetings act and which would authorize this court or a truck court to nullify and void that action taken in a closed executive session and that's sort of what council was arguing that oh well they did this in executive session well they're not authorized to do that so by his own argument this court would be authorized to strike that decision if it was finals who that his next thirty with will but you can't object because nobody appeared to february first from under the other meetings actually don't need to be there to say i object or you have to do is have a right it's the night or have a violation of that there are plenty of open meetings that cases that are filed daily or weekly whatever the rate is now but  my presumption is fundamental black letter law that says well this work should meet with the foreman and do do what it's supposed to so that's that's a certainly a concern of mine that they did take this action in violation of means that best of the arguments by going into executive session there's no motion there was no vote to go into executive session so that argument is completely you know off the wall and unsupportable under any set of facts and in any situation here where we don't have a manifest we don't have the work taking a majority vote i am i am very very concerned about what is in the supplemental record here in supplemental record on its face value there are photographs that they have submitted as part of this record purportedly there were photographs considered by a local election official photos to rebut williams well those records were never  of any proceeding on january twenty eighth and if they were that would support this court's finding that that decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence because i didn't see those exhibits kenneth williams was not able to rebut those this is fundamental to process fundamental rights to confront to the whole need to see the evidence provided you know your statements and to cross examine that of us those photographs of kenneth williams purportedly were not in any of the transcripts from january twent  properly supported by the rec in all those little actions there but cuss spends a lot of time talking up the perceived errors in the record as applied by the elect or aboard the trial that makes one think he lost at the trial court level he won whatever omissions may have been at the trial court level one and one how they punish my object or she is equally at risk of losing some sort of position at the trial court is an insufficient record  so there's no sanction that is appropriate to an object or because the independent body the elect for some up fail to but going a little further they did not fail as far as i can see from this eight volume record in an over abundance of caution they improper in this limited