h your honor's this case arises from the defendants implementing a plan to close or purchase patterns within calumet city the player was just changing hours close these no patterns and the way we're going to go about it is that we're going to strangle them economically so that they're forced to deal with us no there's not and i would refer your honour's to case the what the golf ball case and and tell me about fault was that did that involve the right of association to continue drinking now now all call with know the purposely depressed property values in anticipation of future land acquisition if you can prove that you've got a cause of action and yes we hear that all right larry if you can prove that now you have to clean this i believe by playing do you think you played it when you say that this is what we used to make this is what we make now the building was worth whatever that that allegation you know if we really looked at it this conclus smoking gun would be maybe not the minutes of the discussion among the mayor and the alderman in new york or ladies about their real reason for reducing the timeline which would be the between the mayor and her staff the other women and as a result of that meeting the mayor called me and some of my clients or others and offered to buy their places and said if you don't sell them we're going to get them anyway worth more than that so i am all these it wasn't then you say and now it's worth yes and you don't say why except you say because we don't have these two hours these are all from the batch that i play with the pleading stage when we get to the proof i do not have to put evidence in my x i can plead factual conclusions which i have i do not get to play definitely i felt that these properties were depreciated in let it you know tell me what i believe i said up in my initial brief as to make some factual mistakes but i think when it comes right down to it he felt that as long as the village had the power to regulate hours anything you'd get in that area was sufficient in that there was no way i could prove i think that that's not really he said you have not gone beyond what you're fired to do that when we enquire into the generally legislative path in order to get past a reason for that legislation that that we need more than simply saying well there was a real plan you have to plead specific facts like amounting to say a fraud now in the case where the older person got fifty thousand dollars there wasn't any written agreement and i'm not saying you need any written agreement but didn't the courts say that you and not let anything get without to stuff in more than wills i'll support discriminated as far as hours were concerned between tapings and then we look at the result in this is what i think the trial judge was saying you didn't give me anything before every n has happened so we gave him the statements before o'clock licensor and she didn't like that the idea that there was noise and whatever else coming from those stairs let's assume is there anything wrong with the mayor and the older people deciding that station or locals to hear and see what they did correct but the way they did it they should have made provision for us for compensation or they should have done it across the board where everybody was treated the same ok it isn't the money  plan that they have put into effect has no relation the public health welfare and safety there's no question a relationship was between their decision to let these poor stay relevant in these aig where there's actually city would not pay more than one hundred thousand dollars for any bar unquote regardless of its term market right now is there any further reference to that particular allegation anywhere other weapon with the effect of economically with the effect of here's where i think you got into a bit of a problem because it's the conclusion with the effective economically damaging the plaintiff's properties and facilitating the that if he told these people frankly i'm a going to pay anything more than one hundred grand for places and then you say twenty eight the mayor recognizing that these point us would not voluntarily sell conspired to reduce the hours sell that correct at some point the businesses would never be able to get their compensation they would be devalued with anyway and our when and where did they conspiracy to deprive these owners of their property without compensation asked the question have you gotten past this threshold that you need and i think that the judge the trial judge and i think th quote the mayor saying i'll never pay more than one hundred grand for it now does that rice the level of shocking the conscience or do you have other specific instances like that well in your complaint some place that we can say this also is an indication that their conscience is being shocked i mean it's not enough simply to capitalize removeable ploy you know that doesn't depress me much that you put in are you capitalized the are i just trying to same pages i know i know i mean you're here you're deftly pleading you're ok that's what your job is you want to get by it through six fifteen motion if you can but other than the mayor's quote i'll never pay more than one hundred grand for day you misspelled has a right to do something but when they do something they are right to do for a purpose that they don't have a right but the only thing you're hanging your hat on this the mayor is subjective attitude with respect to what she  change right yes ok is there anything that the court had to get you from doing in terms of trying to develop this theory that somehow her comments on the record went from that to something with these six or seven people only dismissed the complaint three types are right and you know we've been focusing pretty much on the due process there are also the speech aspects of it advertising pieces the advertising use names were not allowed but the other ones were the courts if you can't do that concrete is equal protection or special legislation we have these temps that are exactly the same in every respect as far as their public impact the secondary effects the primary facts are exactly the same yet they're treated differently so that can be by definition no public purpose there is no rational relationship whether in the affidavit west city and then you say kind of mysteriously in paragraph twenty two at least i find it mysterious the mayor's negotiations to purchase as described above did not include payment of a compensation for any business operated although they were off and these places where the tap with on the first floor and there's a residence on the south many every market many of them are some are not like the mom and pop operation where dad comes down in the morning and open contacted refused to sell explained if they were running successful businesses that were their sole source of income then you throw in paragraph twenty four the word retaliation inclusion for the refusal of them to sell it with the intention of do see it's defendant's position that everything kind of starts and ends with the liquor control act and we heard a lot about the allegations of this plan and all these other things that people are thinking but what was done here was the passage of ordinance that merely made closing hear that this is because the group the mayor and the six or seven all over persons in the spot here to not give them a fair you know gets us back to the liquor control act in effect that they're not being able to under businesses they want that they're losing profits and if that does get you into the two kates and i can call it last night that the courts have said clearly that if your complaint is that you for some profits really apply here for a couple reasons number one in those cases the legislative an estimate that was being challenged actually change something about the property whether it was rezoned from commercial to residential or maybe the voted for this unanimously and the greatest the mayor's remarks might be i think under that the hypothetical you presented it still doesn't he still has a shock the conscience even if the mayor is scotus we'll hang up about this saloon that's next door to where she getting rid of all of them but let's get rid of mostly the two am sell the residential block my understanding is right they're not located in the neighborhoods there is a difference there about where they're located it's very reasonable for the city to say you know if we get close or a little that they're getting preferential treatment but again you get back to that the liquor control act where the state says you can make classifications you can treat them differently you can have different closing times and all you need is the rational basis so if the allegation  things as shocking to the conscience that began trying to get around this rational basis test lamp but at that i don't think that they had a plax you know regardless of that you know the conflict between the first district and the second district and what the standards i but again here that their whole argument against it's back to this week was profits therefore our business is failing therefore our real estates failing there for the city's going to have a bias and this is really conceived by the sitting in order to deprive us of the firm market value of our she has the right to say it and it's not illegal or unconstitutional if she's not voting on the others it's what is illegal of her saying that you know we're not going to pay more than one hundred thousand dollars for anything because we don't really think  city and it didn't happen to sell or the mayor to inspire or get these other older persons to agree that in order to make sure that we don't have to get all one hundred thousand we're going to be out there something shocking about it under those facts you know they get sued maybe closer that's  but this yet that tavern animists attributed to the mayor no you know they don't even if she wanted to do that you know maybe if we're talking bribes or something like that or falsifying votes somehow that you know maybe that that gets into that case you're basically saying a single quote like that certainly can't form the predicate for a conspiracy i don't believe so not without more that you know that on the basis of it i thought it well he's arguing that there is much more i mean he's got affidavits from the people who are approached and actually negotiated with the mare for the sale of their property and they all of the allege they got lowballed and immediately after they rejected the lowball here comes the ordinance which cuts their hours and their profit you know in my reading at that point there's nothing in there that that anything other than arm's length dealing between most of those people they say that one is a point that most of them are not this is going to read a complaint you know what good particularly when it's faced with a two six fifteen motion to dismiss we're supposed to give the pleader the benefit of the doubt in i don't think anything to suggest that in the complaint that there's anything other than you know other than the conclusion that we got ripped off other that you know they sold their property to the city the city purchased that it was no get around what happened but there's nothing to taint the at that's in the complaint anything else you want to stress we read your briefs i think it's at your we mostly concentrated on how to an obviously we'll see and i like that he's concentrated on how to just the way shaped his so i'll let him speak for himself but the way he does brief it's clear that he's focusing in you i want to go back to their comment that where the mayor says we don't pay more then there's nothing illegal about that as we've discussed before the problem is when you get a minute with her position as the head but a little coalition out there and  local liquor control commissioner where they enact the work is that ultimately damages the value of the businesses and then comes around and starts buying up the devalued businesses and as well as liquor control commissioner she gives two of the bead licensees allows them to move into the b category the i would point out that the cases that i've read write down a couple in one of the cases that the city relies on of the motives of the alderman and the mayor in case the fraud but the cases are very clear that you can go for abuse of power in gaol they when there was no allegation of fraud or abuse of power but they quoted the chairman as putting some definition on the county was doing in broadening the setback weaponries your connection between the mayor and tony alter basically that no how do you get from her statements that you know far as i'm concerned we're not going to pay a hundred thousand dollars for any more than one hundred thousand free to air how do you get from that to that this legislation that somehow that the shocking the connection is is the fact that this is i'm sorry it's a continuing operation that started with a plan was implemented with an ordinance has resulted in purchases  he's spending the people's morning to buy these property well it could be just a temperance who say going there's nothing wrong with that it's total respect or maybe there is something wrong with that the case is whole that even if you were to eliminate all t us there's always been a rational basis and if you do it fair we cross the board and you don't discriminate if it suits your staff to discriminate you better have another group a reason for making those traces which they don't h until july first of two thousand and eight and then on january first two thousand two thousand and seven two thousand and eight then they make the distinction between some staying up until two you know there's most others closing at midday when you say most is no difference so there should not have been a distinction  council just mentioned that we have not played a loss of any rights as far as the due process we have led a loss of both property and liberty rights which are the foundation for speech for due process and equal protection it's all explain