want to tell you all of the sudden that we are combining the two arguments because they have already structured your arguments and you know your your craft to have them separate or to take twenty filling the state coffers with a group of second class citizens these are people that are montana residents for all purposes except in the eyes of the institution  the court did not reject the notion in light of that overwhelming ability to argue about whether it's constitutional the court correct it is important to point out the types of violations because the court in young did reject that the parties had article three standing that they were affected by the individual defendants in that regard and  of the commissioner of higher education he did not promulgated the in force minutes of the policy which is constitutional on the space but he did continually and this shows even through  handwriting he was telling people in writing he was directing is to ordinance to apply this rule as an era of out of all presumption he was the executive secretary of the bord from the day you start school whether you go to school two three years four years or ten years i talking but when they started school i'm talking about the time when the decision was made to deny and residency standard and that was according to his  an even keel each semester these students went to school i mean boxes of good example she never applied formally for a change in her residency status and the reason she never applied  is because she got the application that you would use and it says you can not count any time when your going steps are more than six credits she talked to people and we get these statements are you talking about them that was meghan cox she never made any formal application and of course you don't have to apply the veal victim this process and this defendant richer acro changed each semester a new catalogue comes out reinforcing you can't apply and you cannot appeal each semester they tell people that try to that this policy is set in stone and there is no discretion and each semester of the pay the student pays that out as state tuition based on their circumstances and those publications billing and this year of audible for example created by the university probably most like alston's somebody that went there and would periodically get the publications and read those and find out i've still not going to be able to do this i'm going to school all the requirements during the twelve month residency period except that she registered for more six credit hundred ninety four correct she continued to go to school through nine hundred ninety eight each time again she was told that this residency policy our determination of your in state or out of state status cannot be challenged you cannot qualify you cannot go to school apply that time towards becoming a resident and quincy young did take action to try to challenge that until she concluded this all students as far as we can tell all students even those that actually challenged this through this futile process were constantly told it's set in stone there are no two ways about this i thought you represented there were some people student i believe that we represent was properly excluded for at least a year you remain an out of state student for at least figure if you move to montana because you're with your parents and they're moving there whatever to not from the record i reviewed i believe what that shows it's people that were allowed in state tuition because they just got it wrong first time and that's an allegation that through the briefs and presented to the court that we're complaining that the school here got it wrong first time we're not we're not saying that the initial classification was incorrect it was correct they were people that had just moved to montana whether they moved there with their family and their husband their house and kids or whether they came there for school and then made it their home in years after that it seems to me you are you arguing the merits of your claim that this was an unconstitutional practice but what exactly what exactly are you saying now as far as the appeals concerned what point are you making the court in  held these defendants and a good example of that is give some we haven't answered the question what is the point of that you making at this point that you didn't run and the courts are a distraction also the question is when the decision was made and whether there's a continuing violation and according to my view the record the decision was made more than three years before the filing the lawsuit even the loss of its except in the case of the he would review those and he would pay the bill realizing that there was nothing he could do so in the case of the angelo she was told by her drama coach i think that she is no point of luck finding this kind of oracle recollection is sarah the angelo did what all students do they got the catalog they read what these defendants she got the catalog and read what these defendants published in them they published in the student newspaper in the  local town newspaper they published these statements very wide and make the policy very clear and when you see it in the briefs and in the x serves you notice that the only thing placed in bould published in the old i don't well i i would answer that by saying we are not seeking to impose liability on the state we these individuals took the sat that's what i'm talking about the supervised and implement this policy there isn't another person that did it for that he surely held liable were also this case demonstrates a good point he is not  currently in power he's not the commissioner of education and with the delays we will never be able to get this court because it continues today to tell somebody in that position to stop of the directors of the university we did include a claim for injunction in this case  these defendants individually and they are no longer the commissioner and the board members the message will be sometimes for a bottle i think we heard today what we saw in the briefs which is they did this they did that they publish this they publish that and that's not that's not true if you actually go to described in detail where they were living how long they have been living here and there are the point that what's the point of that test that goes directly to the qualified immunity defense it because the qualified immunity reasonable for this to the school that mr crafts whoever made that decision in this case mr cross was part of the appeal chain if you judge this student and a nonresident and that's true in every single one of those cases if you look at those students these are students that came from out of state and came just to go to school that it's the initial wrong starts the clock running and it's not and on the resultant harm after that doesn't create a new violation and i there was in turning down the attorney it's just an automatic kind of kind of thing and section one certainly it's not intentional discrimination that section one hundred eighty three affidavit from the university of montana registrar phil bain and there's also a letter from the commissioner of higher education that preceded  says well you've been a full time student but you've overcome the presumption it's pacifically says that phil bain points out eight students from his one campus and we're talking about a system of six say i want a million dollars for pain and suffering and the individual cost me that pain and suffering but it's quite another to say i want a refund on my tuition to the understood thank you starting with the proposition that you don't have to apply to be a victim i think i was too quick to agree joy of sorts or with the notion that mr gibson was denied when he first appl classifications his decision to leave and i never was official until that letter in january twenty third of one nine hundred ninety nine and he shouldn't be punished for the rest of the students in both of the state does not have to reimburse these defendants the state can choose to do that it doesn't necessarily do that and one measure of damages can be how much money  from it doesn't mean it's going to be or necessarily that's the end of the question published writings i probably make too much ado about but there is this is a summary judgment and we were thrown out number one because the students were told the statue imitations had run or they had no standing because they didn't apply well on its faces of the file application and number two they were thrown out because they were ultimately concluding that well the state probably reimburse if you were successful on this so the defendants or even you really want the money back no we want to stop the practice that's not money at all and stopping the practice