granted our motion for summary judgment we moved for sanctions based on misrepresentations dekalb had made about the existence of a public payment on the performance on the truck or in that case tonight a motion for sanctions it appealed to th for that there was a bond and then presented and as it ended up victor very discovering we discovered that there was no bond where you counsel came into the case without seeking leave of course or she filed a motion to dismiss even though there was an answer other mechanic's lien the thing we had in the case was under section five we have learned that carroll was not requesting new smart statements under section five today as we thought it should have been doing under the statute and they made a two page argument in on in discovering responses that hadn't deny the fact that he had been had failed to obtain a bond under oath signed by one of the one of this public commissioners and had answered pleadings in which you deny the fact that it  so far as to produce three or four pages of the five not the most important information page and also not the correspondence that indicated that the bond had actually been returned to the contractor if it had originally submitted it back in two without objection so although to count had previously admitted that this was a public project that was subject to the by the act it that changed its course again and argued that it was a public work and then the main crux of the argument w the ten thousand pound mezzanine structure that our client installed in the building with concrete and bolts was not a permanent fixture to the building so again none of these arguments that the million making one new council came in to rehabilitate in the fact that it continue to make these misrepresentations before during and throughout the lawsuit so it's public you know i suppose i'm glad he pointed to something this time you know i have our opinion has always been an argument has always been that this is the representation is made about the bond and the misrepresentations of the cover up has always been the architect wrote him a letter back and said no we never pictured a bond on this case so at that point to carol with or without his counsel knew that there was no bond yet there were steps taken that you know that's a big question you know i mean honestly i've been trying to think that for the past eight years as to why dick out would have done that i mean i think that they thought that if they had it if they represented then they had some sort of bond that maybe we would have been out of the barracks with respect to notice i really don't know i don't understand why mr farrell would make those representations or misrepresentations or my account would not just come clean about the fact that they didn't have a bond unless they understood actually pressure of on this requirement of the act but for whatever reason i thought that they would benefit from that informing us that there was no bond would you mind if we shift gears just a little bit here to address the and requires a sanctions motion be found thirty days after final judgments manager or after a post judgment motion has been filed and if you were to read the mandate into that and to rule on thirty seven there would be no need for rule three sixty nine which governs mandates so in this case there was no final judgment and there was no post judge a motion that would have triggered us filing our motion within thirty days after the mandate was issued now  reasonable and judge jury did that in this case he's been our judge for the last seven eight years on this case he's granted extensions to be counted he's granted extensions to meet and he knows what the case is about what we've gone through in the case when august of two thousand and sixteen even before the mandate was issued we have been negotiating with the account about possibly settling the case because they have only the opinion has already come down i have correspondents here which i didn't include in the record because we have a confidentiality agreement and then the negotiations back and forth that i consider to be confidential but i understand a correspondence here with account that goes from august of two thousand six hundred to december of two thousand saying that there were never any sound of negotiations because they were there were and after we received this last offer from the calvin december of two thousand and sixteen we discussed this at length with our client over the next couple of months about what we will be going if anything we want ultimately for a two week trial that happened in june on during that time and i didn't put this in the record either because i don't like to air out people's personal business but mr brace was hospitalized and i was a swallow so and i went through and i read about the history of like you all had to go through every day about the history of it and honest to god i find him to be a very sad story but the part of the story that's sad involves somebody essentially throwing down and after that point everything changed but when the counting the defendants are still being tied to that period of time and it makes it very difficult you're of the event in case at this point you see that there was a lot of things going on with that gentleman that were severely factoring in the county its interests both in defense and in  in the claim side of things so as far as it being a change of position of the county i don't believe that it was a change in position of the county i don't think i think that the counties are painted into it because the fact  correct how can you honestly say then we don't know what's happening we don't know that misrepresentations are being made that your position that's why did appears occur from the testimony others that was the end of his career he was removed from the office of course the urgency suspended this is all been brought up in and been argued here before  after that the state's attorney took another attorney and said you've got to take care of this now take over this case so somebody who isn't a murder trial and said you got to take care of this case  ideal but realistically speaking on the ground floor this was a disaster for the people that were there in the county trying to fix everything and we didn't  is it appropriate to make defenses that are inconsistent with the initial admissions made regardless of whether they're made by the wicked witch of the west or back mr farrel or s galahad what difference does it make how all devious the attorney is isn't it inappropriate regardless of of the nature and extent of the dismissing this we now reinstate it and send it back for further hearings and the motion is reinstated it's a live it was timely filed there's no dispute as to that is the way i understand back to your original motion correct so this is an difference i would argue though that here to have to file a motion where you just say give me all the attorneys fees and don't go through any explanation of the a different events that you may deserve  show me what where is there an abuse of discretion it was a year and a half there were two little moves that mentioned if a case was one year or nine months that it would automatically be they basically we had something that came out so long after it had been finished up that i had to go for my client and try to figure out what was going off as this process has been going on i have been finding new things that incumbent she use it as a campaign slogan keep me in office so that there's no change in administration so that my attorneys are not put in to disadvantage absolutely no i didn't think so and any other prejudice that you can point to for this late case at least as of december of two thousand and sixteen when we were negotiating a settlement so the fair bit to count of said i did nothing as well i think speaks volumes whether you know then again there is no prejudice here because had happened with mr farrell and all the misrepresentations that they switched course but that was the case they certainly didn't tell us about that we'll find out all the information that we have about the misrepresentations from third parties we received documents from the surety of this case we received documents from the architect in this case and we received documents from one another party and another third party that indicated that the bind here was returned and that there never was a