case with movements that some or all of the claims because the ordinance did change there is a constitutional challenge to an ordinance no longer in effect yes  is certainly did come up however  time summary judgment motions were made that there are two other billboards along i believe our media group which we recently purchased by clear channel communications which are in existence in the city apparently all the structures so the city is applying the grandfather as a whole can survive a constitutional challenge or whether the constitutional parts of it can survive a constitutional challenge seems to me you don't even reach there here with your honor you know you can't regulate building without any kind of structure without talking about size trade in location we didn't challenge the locational requirements we didn't challenge any specific element we challenge this entire regulatory scheme which attempted to give government officials the right to control speech like that mean you have that you get far enough down the road for the separate bill of the analysis i don't think well i've got a sign that was within the size and height restrictions and then he said but but i think the problem the district court had was that it needs to start off with the proposition that the right to speak but arms to the public and the government can regulate that right if it's very very careful about how does so in the job district court here is not to not find any reason to preserve the government the government's right to control speech in this case once it was shown that the ordinance affected speech the government have had to have the burden of coming forward explaining how each and every one of these restrictions further it will german government interest what i would go back to is the idea that you can't regulate science without regulating the size height and the only other thing is where they're going to be and then of course the content because it creates huge additional problems but it's you look at the marina valley case that we s punishing those people who ignored that law that obviously unconstitutional law and open their business because they didn't go into the middle of a piece of paper that a clerk is going to stamp stamp and prove there you would need an affidavit from the person saying i am a muslim and provided was for example an on site commercial sign what would be the size and height with the stations and that would be the natural thing you'd go to next and as the declaration of william warner the excerpts of record shows in this particular case on the lot challenged by opponents before the district court and see what i have left and what i have left are the definitions of signed the definition of on site find the definition of an off site sign and height regulations you have building electrical and other generally permits before you start your project that way the cities are notice that something is going on within the city that requires an inspection and inspectors can go out at different times to see ye inspector can go out and make sure that it's being installed according to plan to make sure the signs have been built safely which again is one of the major issues in this case and none of that was done in this case and we have hazardous comply with a signed permit why should they have to comply as well and the evidence in the record particularly the declaration sample non separation student davis which does not have that you're in a position of somebody who wants to show arguably constitutionally protected thirty movies in a condemned building and you never have to get past the condemned building part of the case because those  the requirements being applied in a way discrimination by a constitution that's not what the court said the court said you can go ahead and gauge in civil disobedience you can go you can go ahead and challenge challenge the entire scheme if we've done well with city suggesting i would never