account the fact that the f b i report was received after the court made their decision on the motion to dismiss and we received it before the motion for reconsideration it was in our el al counter where the airport police were aware of this which showed that they knew that someone was casing that el counter there was clearly the chance of a terrorist attack taking place there we also have the information that came in from the report of the manual showing that the airport police were supposed to be on duty at all times  supposed to have put police visible which they did not do there was also the violations of the c o r's showing that they had to have somebody available for emergencies at all times that wasn't taking place because as you know from the briefing what took place is that the city took the position that there was not a terrorist attack that took the position they even had an expert come in and say that there was not a terrorist attack despite the f b i s march twenty third two thousand and three report that this was a terrorist attack there was no way that the places would have ever known about bernard wilson's two thousand and four deficit where he not only said that this was a terrorist attack but he also could have developed plans without the assistance of any other agency to fall to foil and each type of terrorist attacks so you have all that information coming in after her judgment and before the motion reconsideration that is some of the basic things that were talked about on the other things that we have here we have a situation of but for the grace of god go with you or i because what happens when we walked into this courtroom today we went through a metal detector if any of you or i would have then at l a x that day we would have been killed was to the chance of being killed or or way off off base but we're dealing with two statutes here we're dealing with eight fifteen eight thirty five and moncur versus city of los angeles and sailing rights and you're not going to get anywhere with tell me about some foreign country operating commercially type of case and what happens is that in eight forty five you have a situation that you have a governmental immunity that is going to exist if they do nothing and in order to do nothing you have to have a police force or something that is involved but what you have here is you have the other aspect you have the aspect where they laid the airport open and they laid the airport open by not going in and putting in the protection that they have going back and forth from september eleventh two thousand and one our words where they inspect the cars coming into the airport they didn't do that on this particular day although they had done it before and they point out as were all that is well and good but you have my core core is california courts have consistently refused to characterize harmful conduct on the part of a third party as a dangerous condition in the absence of some concurren contributing defect in the property itself and selig says the same thing all been honest as the location of public property was next to hazard and can be different but that's not what we have here yes you do when you have a for the following reason because what you're dealing with is you are dealing with is part of the location of the property and then you come into peterson in the other cases as what do they do with part of that will casing the property and what you do with respect to the people that are dealing with the polic doing with this it is what how they act with respect to the location you go to the open gate case the i think it's a choice case where they leave the gate open and people get injured because they left the gate open that's really the situation that you have here they end up leaving the airport open because they don't have people inspecting the cars they don't have any machine they don't have any video equipment going they don't go through and do the human activity that will prevent the terrorist from coming on the property it is a fiction to sit there and think that in today's world where you have the terrorists and this was the highest terrorist target point at that particular time that they're going to sit there and say that they should be immune that is a total and complete fiction when they go out and  over television say that we're putting out guards at the parking lots day in and day out and on this particular day they didn't do it and they're saying we are on you remember on this particular day they had no one there they had one person at a machine at the north end of the airport they had no l a p d there because the l a p d really doesn't take care of the airport the other own airport security force they didn't have anyone standing around under even under their own rules and remember that the whole thing of immunity is a policy decision they had already made the policy decision they have it in their budget when you read their budget they said we've made a policy decision we've expended twelve million dollars on security that decision has been made they're out from under the idea of the unity they made their the polic minister ial as aspects of the policy decision which i think the eight fifteen and the other statutes that we cite in our brief so i don't want to go with the natalie end up in the policy decisions and if you don't want to go on any of those things you end up in the situation that the court down below will ended up on the motion for reconsideration not dealing with the new facts that came in the universe of cases that discussed the statutes but not the closest one to the one that's closest i think joyce is really the one that is closest because that's that's the open gate situation and that's the one that really becomes the closest to what we have the but not all sets up the overall theory joyce is the one that comes down at that type of a situation because you've got the policy has been decided here and there's no there's no question about the they have the twelve million dollars that they're expanding the security and everything else they've decided that is and your whole thing of immunity doesn't work because of unity only goes to the fact of a policy decision and i talk about the failure to serve the terrorists i think i think it's fairly clear that what happens is that the they did get served and they got served afterwards others the service is in there is taken care of and i think that it should be overturned and there's really nothing i mean it's factually done at this particular point in time it just didn't get done by that point in time that were no no what happened is that they did it and they got it into the orange county register and i don't know what happened with the orange county register and stuff and finally it did get published and it got taken care of and that was it so i can just ask you to have that part i think but the factual aspect of it it's really a timing type of thing and what really happened with the orange county register you know i really don't know they kept telling me that they had it in there and they had it in their end  sure what happened with the orange county register didn't get the proof back to the because he is firm or the rental firm in time or i'm asking with all of that explained to the district court no because what happened district court had their order asking us that because this was so close to september eleventh what really took place that this happened in the jerry brown got on the radio and said on the t v and said everything's all right let's keep going in july enjoy july fourth and in the meantime sarah phillips who's your interesting so temporary eleventh required special legislation to take care of these people the people here nothing has been done for them oklahoma city there's nothing that is in place for these people either the  know that's a legislative aspect but what happens here and in this particular case with the warnings that went in and everything you are dealing with a situation that when somebody is operating the way that this airport is operating with the warnings that are taking place there is a way to compensate remember this airport need two hundred forty million dollars of net profit physical characteristic that is going to increase the danger and actually have cause ation or excuse me actually of causing injuries that occurred now the difference here in this particular case is that there was no physical defect in the los angeles international airport that caused any of the injuries here and that's one of the elements here to get into the immunity question that was also raised this to spend our limited resources for police protection otherwise we're going to have courts deciding micromanaging if you will all of our public areas whether it's airports whether it's stadiums whether it's schools with regards to well if you spend enough on metal detectors that you spend enough on police that's an almost unworkable situation and that's something that the courts the courts should not be placed in that position either which is why forty five was pas and court is correct i don't mean to speak for the court it is the correct position or the wall actually is that when you're dealing with the citizens regarding expenditure of these things there's immunity for those airport workers the complaint was almost exactly the same you should have had screening you should have metal detectors you should have an extra security that didn't exist explicitly thrown out because of a forty five same thing with the like except it's a courtroom situation a superior court again the same sorts of complaints shift that screening you should have had metal detectors that was also thrown out under the immunity argument before you even get immunity though the physical defect point means that there is no liability here statutorily there's no statute identified which is another basis to affirm the district court's decision and judgment but in any event there's no liability there's also no or where is the worst line to be drawn the arguments ultimately come down to that's you can't have the court you can't have a public entity become essentially an insurer to prevent all crimes from occurring and no one can necessarily and you see that in some of the case law i believe in the i believe in both my current related discussion of both issues was done but it doesn't matter to the outcome technically  the case all discusses and i believe in the crease in case of the rule stated that before you get issues of immunity you should evaluate liability that other cases say in the interest of usual commie you can jump immunity and decided on the grounds first on those grounds first fifty three in distinguishing zealots the court said the zealot plaintiffs in contrast were unable to point to the manner in which the physical condition of the property should have been altered to prevent the shooting and that's where you have the relationship between the ceiling and the national and in this case were able to show all how the physical condition of the property should have been altered to prevent the shooting and that so when one tries to rely on seelig which is many years after my core the physical condition of the property could have been altered by having the people do the inspection by having the simple security apparatus being put in at the front door that would alter the physical condition of the property and that would prevent the shooting the cuz he could not have gotten in joist seems to require some showing of a defect in order to get to the bus stop you've got to go over the other property which is dangerous the joyce is talking about the open gate that allows you to go in to a place where you're being dangerous but in  distinguishing zelic is why there shouldn't be a munity they say the the reason that the plaintiffs lost in selig is because they were unable to point to the manner in which the physical condition of the property should have been altered to prevent the shooting here we show in our interactive torrie answers how the physical condition of the property could be altered to prevent the shooting so we're outside of what the problem was in zell and i respect the police suggest that because we're outside of what happened in selig and selig coming after month tour that type of immunity is not going to be existing because the only reason that these plaintiffs were turned down zelic was because they couldn't show what could be done to that particular piece of property we've shown that we've taken care of that just a failure to provide essential police services and that's not enough difference because you don't need policemen to go in and look in the trunk of a car you don't have to have a cop to do that but you need you just have any employee to look in the trunk of a car that's police services no not at all your honor because of the fact that even the t s a so that you're trying to tell me that if a government entity uses a civilian to conduct searches that your police service in a sense but they do not necessarily have to use a policeman to do it in fact they aren't using policeman to do is make any difference who's doing it it's the telly talks about providing police services they say that's not nice not enough to get you know zelie talks about providing physical things and what they said in zelic is that they didn't show what physical thing was there we showed you could have been extremely cian there you could use the same thing that you're using a bloomingdale x ray machines don't work with people you don't need a fast don't work with you don't need a policeman to man the x ray machine where you go through bloomingdale's and you go past those two little things that tell you if you're taking something that you need a policeman there you don't need a policeman there your honor with all due respect i want your friends without any any meaningful legal distinction it's not really and i respectfully disagree with you because of the fact that what happens for the video cameras for any of these types of things that you have it is not necessarily a policeman that you need you don't need the policeman to be there to have the equipment and it's the equivalent that is really dealing with these type of things l a x right now there's private security people that are watching video cameras they have private security people sitting out there so what it is it is not necessarily