the judgment in this case i'd like to start just by emphasizing what the alleged fourth amendment violation is in this case what the harm is meant to be it's non disclosure that criminal defendants whose calls have been intercepted are being prosecuted with evidence derived from a surveillance in from a search warrant from  connection between the search warrant and there was you know you have to see here i think you have to separate issues i mean if you wouldn't have a hat problem if there was an independent probable cause because you that claim at least in the second amended complaint he wasn't one of the parties who brought raised a state law claim against either the city or the county all got confusing in their rule of one point the county was taking the  work let me ask you a question about the relationship between the district court's factual assertions and the jury's finding even if the district court rules there's enough evidence going notion that two people have now in this situation the district court reached its ruling on that clarity action before the jury came in with the their determination on the the state l i didn't find any case looking at seventh amendment principles that was only on those facts where where the judge had made a ruling a determination and then subsequently a jury verdict on a different a different cla m really what this record ted doesn't require didn't require any reexamination of the facts found by the jury what's the best case for saying that they don't have to reach back and name on the top of my head i think you could waive you could always a jury i mean people have been tried and you can have that point you have to get rid of the declaratory really i think you just have to piece those cases together cases there are cases i'm sure where where you can get all the way to the ninth circuit or another reviewing court and suddenly realize it's jurisdictional problem and you're whining everything and you have to a intercepted and so with respect to him there's potentially this traditional deception that's available to him but now we have to sort of separate from the chaff with some of these other things where they really found that there was no interception we do it and i think those ray did that when he said first of all that the issues may have been different if the issues that were involved in claim those are significant but if they were the jury the jury did not make findings as against the county on those to make find these against the city on those two is that mean that the that the jury found the there was enough evidence there problem with this case is judge ray always looked at this case as basically a case of non disclosure he never looked at it as an view of judicial deception which he he's a citizen he's not doesn't have a family problem he's complaining that his attorney client conversation was intercepted the judge basically said no you you you know we're looking at one issue here in the complaint it's clearly stated and one in the first paragraph of the allegations that all the planets are complaining about the there is a list of the of the invasions of privacy that's totally doesn't directly attack the conviction so i have difficulty understanding how here your claim is that they were wiretapped was wrong to begin with and the disclosure of non disclosure cases indicate that if if the if there is a route to pursue to attack your conviction which is a writ of habeas corpus and you no longer have that remedy available then then this unconstitutional and if all of the evidence was collected unconstitutional i and presumably it would have had to be excluded and there was no evidence to convict them but i think there was a case from called them which indicated that you can have interceptions of conversations that don't necessarily lead to the conviction and that's that's what we're complaining here we're complaining not incriminatory conversations we're complaining o just record indicated he didn't have any right to claim notice because he wasn't named but no one person on the wired to the problem with that analogy or analysis is california penal code section i believe it's six twenty eight it's thirty eight i may be wrong which gives any person the right to sue a can to complain about the interceptions and it doesn't necessarily limited to a person who is criminally charge think judge ray was incorrect when he said that even mr whitaker didn't have a right to be noticed noticed and told of the interceptions he was clearly a known person that just because he had an indictment or a conviction anything to do with with what happened in this case when you have something occur by a police officer and then you have months go by whereby and a change of waiting can properly be seen to occur that's not what happened in these cases treated just fine i'll keep going so why shouldn't we that because i think what happened was that there was a defense of notice of appeal filed and then the motion was either filed i do the day after and i might i can indicate exactly when it matters like attorney fees were and what could he couldn't even find on the final judgment if you've already treated the previous judgment as a final judgment i think rule four allows the if there's a pending motion that the amendment constitutional right or right out of this wiretap situation that that you had to be an underlying her criminal defendant so if the government just decides to wiretap you because they feel like you don't have a individuals ran from three months to seventeen years it should have been that some page and page thirty five of my brief should have been three years to seventeen years and my point being there was plenty of time she is not three months site where i have it in my reply brief i said three months and i apologize for that on page thirty five the record in my excerpt to and within seven months the word went out about the wiretapping they still have plenty of time to go on on their sins thank you thank you mr long last you have a minute favor of the city as a result of that the city has the right to raise any issues that would lead to the affirm and that judgment including issues that may have been part of the court's declaratory judgment there is no reason the city cannot court finding for example at this court finds that summary judgment was properly granted because there was no constitutional violation which is the city's there isn't there and i hope you publish that opinion did not file a notice of appeal and they were content with that verdict and now they're trying to use another way to try to attack it without formally appealing it  very judgment should be remain in effect because of the policy in the procedure of the city in the county in this case doing this incredible amount of harvesting of wiretapping and non disclosure that went in th