the question of wrong there's no deference to a board and the city's beachside three other cases from this court at stanford it generally go proposition so we're starting with a clean slate here the question for a quote is whether or not the charges filed against my client on december thirteenth two thousand and twelve by the superintendent police is based upon or were based upon the incident that happened on august sixth two thousand and six i submit to the court that the must be brought within five years after the commission of the act upon which the charge is based so the key words here are is based upon the question in the castro case or this is the charge that was fi him based upon what happened on august sixth two thousand and six and i submit it was in the test that i think we should be using this case and i think that logic and justice of the me as in this case is whether or not the ch look at the elements in the charge that superintendent but they don't specifically refer to it but they're based on an incident that would not have with this case would not have been in the police board if mr jessop that made a claim of the use of years would be the prohibition you know it think we all see your point but we see the city's point where for example in this case one of the charges was  were the complainant in this case never filed the brutality on the reason lisa forced play however ten years after the event somebody came across a video at the restaurant that wouldn't if that was all it was in the case and there was nothing in the case about using a reason to force or physically abusing someone regularly he would have that he had an argument saying that this is a ridiculous and draconian punishment based on these facts and also based on the passage but we don't we don't have that here we have we have this the point the this is the point is he was discharged for among other things being outside the district he was discharged for filing a false police report he was will i guess that's not what coach should be doing with the police force should be doing is looking at the issue of the incident or that the gist of the offense and not looking at the charges the superintendent has to file because it would just it just gives the superintendent too much bed third one zero nine nine and it was a recent case that dealt with this for a this is based upon the question in a case was rather not the person's pension benefits were based upon an actuarial table and so they'd be doing some research about dissenters on the police board found is that what is the what is the foundation or what's the what's this case really about and what the castro case is really about is the allegation that the superintendent was making that castro used excessive force and  and he waited over six years before they brought that charge and they also added these other charges which by the way as a charge for filing a false statement or making a false statement could be brought by any superintendent at any time in office career because as a condition of their employment the officers are required to cooperate in the internal investigations and they can be compelled to communicate statements so you could have a situation where someone waits there's an incident that happens and you wait it was president's case but it's in heavenly bodies to two thousand and six the complaining witness mr jackson without complaint right away he was interviewed by may of two thousand and seven castro was interviewed everything that could be known about this that because of experiences i have that are outside the record i do know that in the quote the bahraini regime and there's time limits imposed on how long the city can keep certain records along we can use them if we want to stop back if that's what the point is to force the stress from the patients opposed to pain from this court saying that the superintendent waited too long to bring this tragic result for casper will do exactly that and you will hear all these other cases that we have right now these live with that no private practice is government agencies have to live with that to prosecutors do it in it so it's a fair law and i'm urging the court to apply the standard that the dissent used in this case because the essence or the gist of the case and if we had six years before the charges were an issue why should that be tolerated when the investigation was essentially completed within a couple of proving or establishing to the board said this faction that the officer filed a lie or false report your contention is that report technical response or forth so they can be brought to the essence of the charge of the underlying incident this one involving the question of whether or not all she's too much force that never fail can be used to fire the officer for the rest of his career and then we don't  as a public servant doing the exact same job until november two thousand and twelve when the charges were filed i guess i see the role of castro as a police officer a public servant is should be a motivation for the people fact that public officials and police officers especially should tell the truth but this is basically a stash limitations questions and and we don't the courts typically don't look for wrong exceptions or trying to impose a policy based on