can't use it but i think it would help i don't well i see that i'm getting a picture from your description and so your position is that there's two engineers that are saying that before i computer use that program hit a button in three seconds you got a flow diagram which direction the waters will deny you seem like the court did not want to know x do not want to here you can see there's a common thread to all these statues and tokens instructions and that common thread is there must be a vision for proper dream you know if they didn't have that we have the public court system the stream court there's a lot unpack with what mr cameron just said there's a lot to unpack with mr condit's briefs and i have some prepared remarks for today but what i think is probably most helpful client had the sin to what the court had to say had listened to opposing opposing counsel and to the plaintiff and was instructed to remove the and did remove the dam and agreed to a permanent injunction so my client is not of the position that i should have been able to build an earthen berm dam and leave it there for all time my crime was very understanding and very compliant in terms of having to rectify what had happened previously so that should be the end of the story here because my client was ordered to remove the cam and did remove that damn what has happened in the at this point five years since then is that the plaintiffs can't come to grips with the fact that the dam is gone and continue to assert over and over and over again without any sort of evidence whatsoever that my client has done something inappropriate let me spring of two thousand and seventeen but during the course of this the parties had obtained one survey already by the time i became involved and after that time taint another survey and that was that plaintiff's request that we get a survey of the honor there even when he when he talks about the fact that the court denied motions to get additional information there are no such motions in the record there's this is i'm not aware of the court actively acting to limit the information available to the plaintiffs the plaintiffs wrote the order they played they made the request the motion for the survey and the survey was conducted in the summer of two thousand and seventeen would say that that is that is a theory that they have but there's no there's no evidence to support that and in fact in the original rule to show cause hearing which was held in the summer of two thousand and fifteen there was extensive testimony and that testimony is a part of the record and there's testimony from me and steeper that my client hired who went out took the dam took all the dirt away and knew that the dirt was was gone because he had placed the dirt over the sod in the st place so once you get side your back to to where you start or do you see what i mean your honor he just had piled all the dirt had been piled on top of the sod in the st place took all the dirt away knows he's back down to the original elevation peel still sat back digs it out a little bit more so that a lower or two lower took to increase the grade at will lower to increase the grade down and this is in my even it when when you look at that that intended sloping there's been less there something that that my client has done to block the act then there's no way to hold my client in contempt of court and when mr government talks about the fact that we didn't take this back down to the original elevation that's really given speculating as well because there is no survey of what the original allegation was prior to my client putting in the landscaping but there is no survey from that there's a survey that was taken mid through this litigation and that before the st rule to show cause hearing and then another survey that place petition for and was ordered by the courts taken prior to the nd rule to show cause here there's no survey from before the guess decrease the elevation a little bit more put the side back and then we had so we have testimony saying it was removed and we have a survey showing that there is nothing there there is no higher elevation in my client strange is where your honor i can't speech that because i don't i don't know where that place would be and that gets back to to my fundamental point here is that this is a difficult case so are you want to appeal because i'm not sure even what exactly we're talking about we don't have any record evidence this before you want to appeal we don't have any record testimony regarding the rule to show cause hearing and twice now judge wilson has taken a look at the actual exhibits they were injured in the evidence as taking a look at the testimony of the people sitting before her and said based on this testimony based on these exhibits based on information i have here both in terms of photographic evidence maps and surveys i do not find that there is any blockage of the natural flow of water and she said this twice now and so not only is there not a blockage when we talk about a rule to show cause which i again come to do my best to say ok what are we really on appeals here about it fundamentally should be the denial of the rule to show cause from a procedural basis and when you look at it will show cause you have to show both of there is a smear a field a violation of the injunction into that it's  and so there was no violation here to have any evidence to look at whether there was a violation here and then nd even let's say that there was some type of violation there's no no there's no information whatsoever evidence that we could look but this is one that is has increased my education i won't say i'm an expert but yes there is i have seen surveys that have what the computer considers the likely directional flow of  and we got that accomplished that some of the court granted that that motion we have the survey done and we have to we all looked at the survey results including experts from both sides again not something that you can see animosity between the attorneys in the case early on and i know that there were some disagreements between the two of them about to what extent there needed to be specific protocol for a survey and what not and at the end of the day the court said listen we've you guys agree the last time you were here this is how we're going to do the survey but there there wasn't any sort of disagreement if you will they would rise  procedural level as far as something that the court acted on to night playing this information that he had requested your honor that's a great question because the nd down according to you to plan is some sort of an identifiable structure slash dirt of evidence we have to review here we have the testimony of this women's landscapers saying he removed all the dirt back to the original condition which he knew he was at by the side when he reached the side he knew all the dirt was gone difficult for me to defend the supposed installation of a hidden invisible non identifiable structure at some potential possible spot in my client charges and the structure know what i can tell you is that my client and again there's she's testified to this as well as her landscaper is that she took every action to remove any impediments to the natural flow of water and there there is no record evidence that would support the theory that somehow she has used extra dirt to impede the natural flow of water there's there's no testimony just  water in a non natural direction towards the mormon property what the flow looks like it can't flow like it used to because the plainest i've installed there only in skipping berm on their side of the property line cell you entered with respect to that question that's the extent of what that survey looks like  the government property you know we do not have the right to one another's property without permission we ask for permission you have these elevations in the judge denied i asked her i number five saying think you know there's no cost to it get a different but three seconds you've got that directional diagram it's much easier to understand because you're not working with two decimals on the elevations now the zoo survey was limited in the blockage area in the court denied the only early were interested in was the area where the blockages and she said no we're not we don't want the detail in there she just diety if there is no blockage why do we have a  never be answer that question what is on the right to pump water on the minister property he never offered anything that gives him the right to intrude on another's property and make use of the property said she said that they want to slow the water down they don't have the right to do  evacuation pipe a lot of it is sitting there well they were taken and now this that's in the record there's a photograph of the record they never answer the question why didn't when they install the dam to start with what gives three foot is not that it is probably three feet three feet but it flattened out here and it drops off that's where that's where that nd dan is and that's what's causing the problem dow and i think keeping a blockage for for a half years takes on the trappings of being willful conduct intentional conduct is designed to hurt somebody else i even had a count a nuisance that you know children young children can  is a lot of evidence that shows that one year olds can drown in one issue water thank you small grid so we can tell what the elevations are we don't know what the illusions are in the mr silver thorn in mr high school said there's not enough data to do to do an engineering opinion you have some experience with that number resistor professional engineer my brother was a surveyor help him i know about these things in i couldn't believe that the judge woods would deny us the right to get information and that's that's what this case is about to do what they've been doing which is blocking the water that some of the visions would also the water would go in in a natural free flow no structure and that's what the permanent injunction says and then by a