by the lower court based on statute of limitations that was applied and we believe it was an error of the law the purpose of a statue of limitations is to deter the state actors from abusing authority and providing a remedy when that already is abused and the statue limitations in this matter is not   is not a political this this is a this involved a county board of supervisors that created a public office the office of the yes or county public defender office in the same order stated that the public defenders shall not receive employment benefits of county employees that is in that no statue of limitation should apply and that the damages that we are seeking or are timely improper before the court should be apparent to everyone that a public employee receives these benefits and it would even be against public policy for a public employee to bargain or barter or or agree to not receive these under that under that retirement plan is that statutory yonder it is it is it is a statute with a with a definite meaning  the definition under purchased for part requires someone to work less than twenty hours a week and eighty hours a month and the record reflects that  works more than twenty hours a week but she wouldn't admit that he worked more than eighty hours a month and we asked the court to take judicial notice of four point three  more than eighty hours a month but the other rule the part under purchased includes people that are required to work half of the time that the hours are normally sit for that same position and in this case there were no hour set for this position and mr rushing was required to do the work as long as possible  he also went to hers to defend it definitively requesting them to enforce the statutes and it was it was is understanding that that they were going to look into it and then secondly what is this specific really you want from purse specific really you're asking in this case reacher yes or well the specific relief from empathy even get any to even ask for credit for our service so i believe that he's entitled to add after we best him with the eight years after two thousand and seven to request the other two years creditable account to pay of delinquent accounts back home and that statute very still has that duty today because the the only the only statutory thing that says that  that he is cut off is when he actually draws a retirement then he has no right to to cure it his service credits or his accounts and he has not drone or retirement he which in mississippi system each oh is it any time any place in for any reason and that because the illegal blow is no and boy that says if they didn't exist it violated the protection posed by saying that public defenders shall not receive the benefit spurs and other benefits of county employees that created a class that they singled out without any kind of purpose or reason to discriminate against and it's it's well known that public employees in the state of mississippi received these benefits it was dumb that any authority or distraction whatsoever it's well known that the counties don't have the authority over d steps to the federal and state mandates as to fica and and all these other b damages portion of the lawsuit but specifically regarding purpose is that there is there are state statutes that still require to this day that purrs can limit the input amount plus interest and to to give him retroactive service traits that's that statutory and in it even says that failure or failure of the county did not make this contributions  does not relieve them of any liability and it is still their obligation so in effect what happened was is when the court found that because mr rushing knew about these claims in two thousand and fourteen that their town board that that put a statue of limitations on what the county when they're supposed to pay per se has nothing to do with any duty that was that was ordinance is entered that it has the effect of the vault and it's still the law and as you counting now that the public defenders don't get these in a fit and the application of a state what system for purpose is not being applied the same in yasser county as it is in the majority d of other counties that pay part time and full town public defender offended as if we find that law is that we need go no further in terms of answering the questions that you present other then his his retirement relief for them to enforce the statutes they are the state agency that is to enforce the public employee retirement system and they're supposed to enforce it equally amongst all the counties and they didn't do that in this case  and they they cannot say that they don't pay part to employees in other counties of public defenders under the same statute created in the same stats you because they do they administer those accounts they collect those the only issue in this case is whether or not the appellant's claims for time barred what he filed that is the ruling that judge leave made in granik summary judgment he did not make any rulings as to merits of the subject of merits of the appellant's claims so the only question in this case is whether or not the claims for time bar when they were filed just jolly to the point that you who are a title to purse membership and all other county employee benefits they satisfy us all her's eligibility criteria i would also say that he does and the only reason that he isn't getting paid or less benefits aren't being screened for him is because this county he's otherwise he doesn't have to sue going forward if he can prove was billeted he's going to be entitled to whatever damages accrued after the alleged improper deprivation but so as to your hypothetical y lawyer or your wallet and or up to your three after he allegedly are deprived of that membership you could of course sue for damages resulting there at both prior to and thereafter but he didn't do that here file his suit and he just simply sat on his rights and didn't do it but your honor i know you're talking about a hypothetical here that he does qualify although i continued to maintain the sole issue statute of limitations that stevens cases in our briefing and they stand for the proposition the six break for cases that a continuing tort sufficient to tell the statute is one that involves repeated improper to conduct  it is not one that involves an isolated improper act that late to repeated harm flowing from that act and that's exactly what you have here underneath your analysis no one can say if they were employed more than three years after the word well it's your honor it's not our contention that he had three years from the three the or it circuit hitches that he had at best three years from when he was aware of the orders and he was aware that he believed he had been harmed by those orders and that was july th two thousand and fourteen per his old member so we don't see it and that he had to file with the three some running out of time is the issue of rightness and it kind of goes back to what we've been discussing here his contention that he couldn't file until he retired and was supposedly at his of do you eligible to draw all retirement that's nothing case because again his claim for right when he was deprived of membership of the purse back in two simply says that a board of supervisors cannot expand monies beyond what it's been budgeted has nothing to do with tiredness and they also cites a haze vs purse case for his position that he had to retire or be before he could file the suit although his case simply says that if you're an otherwise eligible hers member you can't troll retirement until you fully separated from your covered employment that case did not involve any suit for retirement benefits as i think the argument so far today has demonstrated per's is basically tagalong and in to the claims asserted against as you county indeed funding for perth's comes from employee and employer contributions and classification of eligible employees for purpose is determined by the employer based on the employment relationship here each time the gaston county board of supervisors established a public defender's office st in one thousand nine hundred and seven and then again in two thousand and eight the board's order specifically stated that public defenders are part time employees with new fringe benefits as yet as you county pointed out rushing concedes he had actual knowledge that he was not enroll within about a month of beginning both his st and his nd terms in the as you county public defender's office so that would be about mid december of one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight and then again by mid december of two thousand and nine because of this the district  contributions plaintiffs claims against earth often necessarily fail and unless this court has any specific question i will theme the remainder of my time in reiterate our request that earth be that the district the county there that they have the duty to enforce their statutes their statutes clearly say that all county employees are eligible for purged upon employment now what we're saying is is that the county board orders this it made mr join that they're eligible i mean this noble is said that that the county determines who is eligible person's duty to require the county to pay that the link with employees contribution or the delinquent ploy or is contributions plus interest and purpose has a specific definition of employee an employer and includes all public offices and the employees so state agency charged with them for some authority of this purpose regulation troops a county making an order with no authority and no eight years and become eligible for a pension which he did do and then according to the hayes hayes case and the statutory language actual retirement actual resignation or is that we did not only just suit the become members of her years we sued for the missed pensions from the day that he resigned and tried to draw this retirement try to get injury he was not injured in this case by the county not pay and purchased but when they were supposed to do those payments and and per's not collecting that money he was injured when he worked it when he did all of his obligations as a matter then seventy eight years and he did that in two thousand and sixteen and then the other statutory requirement for him to be entitled within one year of his resignation so if if there is a statute of limitation that applies at all it would be after his resignation and that would he would he he did follow the one year that