pertained to the case and particularly still refer to things such as having the st louis house so as powerful wrote stating he's still behind in child support stating that when mr roger contacted him that basically the doctor to prove was sarcastic things of that nature when i when we talk about those when i pick on the sarcastic think particularly because obviously mr pressure is not going to ever come into court testifying about sarcastic responses from doctors approve he could he would be permitted to do it but obviously when people hear those types of things it is something that's going to have an obvious effect of swaying a person child support yes you just child support is not the child support at the time was not paid it has been subsequently paid it has been so your complaint is the way you heard about that is part of the complaint and also the complaint is that counsel is obviously having exploited communications from the judge and i understand what you're what you're saying just spoke i think in a way you're going well if there's no harm in the end fiery here the simple fact of the matter is is that number one we are here because dr drew is entitled to a fair and impartial judge and i get very concerned because this did come up and particularly the sale of the house came up in the e mails and part of judge bailey's ruling and part of his arguments w and this you know all follow somewhat by will the initial suggestion that we have counseled leave the room it is the same here we have to continue to work with judge bailey and they have said that he should be getting notices and suggestions from counsel and sarcastic responses and things of that nature should be brought up to his attention it is not evidence that is not proper evidence especially coming from mr gresham and it's something letters coming to him there's a concept and we say that's the bell cannot be unrung the judge shouldn't be hearing any of that in the first place and the reason that it is not considered evidence is because it is not proper to be considered in the case whatsoever but tried to point out that in fact this would not be something the poor here would countenance and nor should allowed on there but the real issue here when we look at this further is not whether there's any real issue when it comes down to is this but go back to what you said about the motion respectfully sir when somebody files a motion number one that is subject to one thirty seven citations it has to be a good faith meeting it is something that is part of the public or private or until as far as i can tell until we filed our motion until we start moving forward there will be nothing to require these e mails to be made part of the public record our system involves one of openness in government in which individuals are able to come to  lacking in substance this person should be sanctioned for filing these things and there are things apart here and again it hurts to the heart of our system we only publicly file those documents and therefore the public review what we started hauling judges history is our system is public evidence is subject to cross examination oh this is something that we present people get to hear and people get to decide if we go back to the back door will still phrase that we always hear even if the law school is we go back to star chamber well we don't have changing this country we have public forums that are open for people to see what's occurring i think again with this is objective what a person be reasonably able to question the impartiality of oh a judge or a justice who is receiving these things i think the answer to that is yes judge bailey has given him multiple second chances every time there's an excuse for a reason the doctor look through has why he hasn't made payment he promises he will change eventually the payments are made and then a couple months later we file another   can't say to what judge will and knew or didn't know he obviously entered an order based on our motion to strike after that mr hill's work was retained filed a motion of a we agreed that that that the order striking none specifically to that point that there is a case that i cited in my brief which is in remarriage of the week where the u s congressman or former us some congressmen sent the judge a letter in that case it was directed only to the presiding judge it wasn't sense of the attorneys the attorneys were made aware of that that that's different from this case where i think everybody was aware i don't know that i would draw distinction in this where is if by some chance the faily were out socially somewhere and ran into myself and mr bills or if we all talked about the case that that would not be considered ex parte may not be proper but that's not what happened here that would not be ex parte because all of the parties were involved in that that's the same situation here when the when the correspondence is directed to all parties and they part of the