the but case the word in the case and the goal setting cases it is very clear that absolute immunity applies to in this instance the building inspectors investigation procedure against the plaintiffs are against mr snyder with respect to the zoning violations at his property what they did was they found they were ok well i can understand that your absolute immunity question may not be dependent on any factual disputes but assuming hypothetically that your clients the two building inspectors are not entitled as a matter of law to absolute immunity then we are back to the qualified of unity question and on the qualified immunity question we have the initial question of the jurisdiction of this court as you know under the johnson case if there are kerio facts  did why is the plaintiff's case which you are willing to have mick to and then argue that nonetheless your clients are entitled to qualified the complaint is replete with allegations of conspiracy and of retaliation by the building inspectors against mr snyder but at the summary judgment level which is the time to put forth date that she was fired she made a phone call to the building department what you have to understand is that the building department gets these sorts of calls all the time if we could go back or t influence the building department to take a close look at this man's property you must assume that to be true why then are your clients of any possible claims because it's long as your client had a valid reason to take the actions that you did whether it was motivated by  irrelevant is accurate correct is there's no indication i don't know about the equal protection class of one argument the subsequent building inspectors made a mistake with respect to integrity not they clearly only looked at the minutes they didn't look at the variance itself the variance only allowed for three offices the fact that the bad that's where the residence was to be this this building looks like a house there is no way that the could be any residence at this time or in two thousand and six when this arose there's no way there could be any residence on the second fall it was no second man to be a no bathing facilities there wasn't even a bathroom or anything i don't think there was except for a toilet that there was any bathing facilities and on the property so even if we get past due to comply with the variance you could have that use at the time a audits question they're not comparable because the zoning writer explicitly allowed for an optometrist's office among the list of professional office mistake they said yes you can use it both as to offices and then where ships as in the night i'm not concerned about the residences i'm concerned about the professional office restriction and you have yet to answer the question george what do you if we go back to the similar way situated prong of the equal protection class of one person who was also residing there was a had a roofing business there for his argument you say that there was somebody similar has not been mad and therefore the equal protection class of one claim it's correct what about the underlying issue that as long as there is a valid reason to have sent the exist here that any other owners get multiple visits from the building inspectors until they finally change their mind to comply with the city councils with you're out of this those there's no evidence that there was any complaint about the use this particular property the building inspectors don't randomly visit properties it's usually people who are saying my neighbor is doing something that i know is in violation of the law in this instance even though the call came in on  before this court the qualified immunity issue raised by the appellants depends on disputed questions of material fact and as a district court found there are numerous disputes of their material fact he has this case but  didn't help us very much said you just look at the pleadings on summary judgment and it's obvious there are disputed issues that without telling us which ones were material presumption of regularity i think that the irregularity is one it was drafted solely without any input from solely by the defendant's attorneys without any input from the  three years after the conclusion of that may be but hey it's your burden to show something that the district court found to be true sufficiently some event to put it into a record was not true so let's start with a hypothetical that these inspectors actually were found by a court to have had a valid basis to have fact that this documentary first made its appearance at the summary judgment stage of this litigation three years after the conclusion of the waltham district court proceeding and it is obvious from the circumstances that this was characterized his position was that whatever allegations assuming they were true against him they they were we deny that they were true but they were they weren't happening anymore nobody was living on the property if they ever were which my client absolutely denies he denies the allegation that he's not first of all some of the allegations are so vague the allegation that he's not a professional that there was no basis whatsoever in terms of the condition of the property for these inspectors to send out well there are emails there are e mails between  building department and the lot apartments specifically where the building inspectors initially found that there was no violation and that subsequently after repeated calls from sally quinn laura the question in this they're two different well our position is there's sufficient evidence and in the record to say that that personal animus actually caused the city officials to issue these notices of violations they initially inspected the property it comes out several months later on paper it says there was a violation is that that's what the paper valeo up and that's what the paper trail shows and in the meantime in those several months there were repeated communications and calls by sally clora to the building department to the law department essentially yes we've taken watch as it's the there is sufficient evidence in the record as this is what the district court recognized that the animists celie call or cost of the defendants to find these violations and some of the violations ya legations violations on their face are so pretextual for example he's not a professor and i happen to disagree with you on those points i don't think that argument you know on the face of it it's so absurd it couldn't possibly be true when in fact it goes to court the court keeps the matter under advisement keeps going if it were that self evident the court wouldn't have done that eventually in two thousand and eight or two thousand no charges and isn't that's that's the abuse of government power that you're complaining that is the abuse of government power and there's sufficient evidence in the record to support the claim that there were these reasons were pretax profit or help help you with this let's assume that the city councilor was just out to get your guy because she'd been fired she was ticked off so violating the ordinance being out of compliance and given what he was doing he was shipping and receiving he denies he denies that his office was a shipping receiving operation what's his testimony on the record about what he did his testimony is that when he purchased that building several years prior to the events giving rise to this litigation he went to the building department of the city of wealth that and asked the question is what was he doing at the time he was saying he was using his building as an office or his company and what the company do the company manufacture a small position tools for use in medical surgeries and that facilities off site the building his first floor is an office there's a computer he has he pays  bills he receives accounts he also examines a small items that he manufactures from his facility that doesn't sound to me like a professional office well why is it well i mean i are calling your honor is there is no there's no reasonable there's no reasonable basis to say that he's not a professional and that the reason offered reasons offered that he's running a warehouse and that he's running a shipping receiving operation are this court injury was entered three years later are you are you denying that it accurately reflects what happened in court yet your client knows compliance he would take actions to come into compliance he know was that if there was a concession and an agreement on his part going on we deny that that actually represents what mr snyder conceded in court he didn't co i was never in violation there was nothing i needed to do you can come to my property and look at how i run my office my building there's nothing i need to do to come into compliance he never conceded that he was in violation of any and that's unfortunate there's no recording of those all time just record proceedings are unaware of but that's what he stated thank you