ironically this case probably started in this very courtroom in february of two thousand and two when i argued another case of had the same parties in it before judges nelson and hawkins and mr  lost that case here and he decided to start a vendetta against my client and he had an extra excellent instrumentality to do that because his best friend of twenty five years and his tenant and somebody that with whom he did extensive business mr lawson was one of the commissioners on the california transportation commission the salient facts that are set out in the complaint are that he used that relationship to start a campaign which deprived flying j of some land th made then in a legend in the february two thousand and four decision by the commission the complaint does not in terms say that decision was influenced in any way by pistachio and that is the operative decision that of course now means you don't have the property and continue to infect everything else that happened thereafter the complaint doesn't exactly say that so my real question to you is do you much care  necessary i don't think it's necessary because you would like it but it's possible and we certainly i mean if you're under one of your theories at least you don't need that i don't think we need it but then tell did remember why you would like it i assume that means that if you lost their first that then you would like an alternative right opportunity yeah there's a couple of answers to what you say first of all there's really no dispute that between october second of don't want damages for the period of time i mean you're just whatever you get but your damages are not that you didn't have this property between october third in january two thousand and four i mean what you want is the property and you want the money that you would have lost an income stream forever i take it i think that's part of the damages i mean as well you know what i hear look i'm trying to be practical with you here i mean you're going to if you take my if you listen to what i said you're going to win no matter what so my question is is mike my question is does it really matter to you how you win because your point of view and the right to develop it for ever ok i can clear it up i think i can clear up that it's part of our damages and that is one reason why this case isn't moot as the judge tried hard said in the referring you have to get in and then a compliant well i i would take the position that if you look at paragraph thirty five and the thirty five to thirty nine of the complaint i don't think that anyone could make a finding if there was an independent board from that so i don't think we have to amend but quite frankly amending is no big deal it happens every day it's very simple as a judge has permitted us to amend in fact he said in his opinion of september ninth the very thing that we had to allege so clearly there was a series on which we could do that so one way or the other i think we do win but don't get the wrong idea i have no pride of authorship here fact i can offer this complete but the i think it's good enough but if it isn't great well mended sad and put enough in there that's fine as easy to imagine but i don't think that anyone could honestly say that we thought that the second hearing was independent any way shape or form but they can never get rid of the interim period they can never get rid of it and that is you know the ownership of a significant parcel of land for there to fifteen months i'm going to reserve the rest for a bottle that's rather have any question motion to dismiss that being the case and given the facts that they set forth in their motion to clarify and for the facts on appeal i don't see how you can really basically deny leave to a man well i think even let me put it this way i i think even with the facts that that they're alleging i think that that it's pretty clear that this was an with the february two thousand and four decision well they don't regardless of that let me finish regardless of that they clearly allege that there are some damages that occurred at least in that interim period any the theory of at least one other there is which is interference with prospect of business advantage doesn't necessarily mean that they would have ultimately had the advantage it's a question of proof on damages but it seems to me that's i don't understand why it why it isn't a viable theory even if if we assume that there is an independent intervening of that because the ultimate damage that they're suffered was they didn't get the property but that's the altar and if in february of two thousand there was an independent determination by the commission that basically ratify the earlier decision there always had to be the the transfer of the property prospective business advantage and suffered this amount of damage now it's not going to be this the the quantum of damages for and i'll think play contract but it may well be a just screech maybe smaller maybe not maybe quite small amount of damages but their damages for that period i think i really don't and i'm i'm probably being very thick about this but i really don't understand that now because yes there has been car business and i'm saying i don't think necessarily so now i had interference with contracts another matter i don't think they have left the interim period interference with prospective business advantage it's hard for me to see why that doesn't survive there had to be ultimately in order for them to assert damages they had to have ultimately got in the got in the property and been able to exploit it and if in february of two thousand let's assume the earliest the earlier commission was as dirty it was it was bad it was tainted i work for the i mean lawful activity they would have received the property then all wife does have to come move because as a result of that illegal activity they didn't receive what they should have received and two years later the commission says well now we wouldn't give it to them i mean why don't they have a claim that they would have received the first time and that's what they should that wiped out two years later the two years later would never have occurred under this theory i understand i don't understand why that's