in fairness just me to buy some property from you to remedy that situation they have never apply never with the invasion is intentional we told them not covering our property you have no right to you take the lead in two thousand and ten if you know gays the waiver per three zones change and it was the question of where to put a fair way to go of course the plaintiffs in their case had actually been involved in ga june two thousand six and mr cooke who really is the main agent here i don't think anyone has any doubt about it his response which doesn't dispute the ability to use that property third is i see these real estate broker run building had a conversation with mr cooke in july of two thousand and six in the summer zero six meeting to the city and then enters into an i j with king county to utilize this and a certain obligations thereafter such as we have to permanently maintain this december two thousand and six december sixth actually and then we when weeks later i see the close up property pays mr summers client five point three million dollars and i think it's control purposes then used it as a landfill so it seems like you can make money by digging a hole and filling it up so why couldn't you do that because you would have to find a way and that you could actually do that in the intrusions on the property we do not have an intentional intrusion case the calhoun case pacifically says if the plan is the defendant had been wall into this action those things exist here there's evidence that the one of the high trust intent isn't simply a case about me silent there was another time to explain how we should negotiate with the county coming to meetings this wasn't simply getting a letter significant actions not just behind the property negotiating with the county and city dedicating a portion of our property to the city as a router and actually ultimately closing and constructing on the property all of those action know responding to a letter that clearly references that we are asking for permission from the county is the detention and never mentioning your home permission i think isn't for me to act as well as simply implicit believe that the evidence also established flashers on the same instances that the city outlined in that we have outlined in arm three also established flashes and i point out that it may have doesn't again object to any  defense reads that after it lays out the details of special use that even after participating in the process the highway trust took actions that lead my client to believe that they were given their permission also there was significant discovery responses that made out conversations between mr bill and mr cook and mr nigh mr cook all of which were soundless the trial the cases are clear they do not have to lay out all of your place and so it really is again this entire year of conduct and not just that much needed example we also have a affirmative defense on clean hands which i know is somewhat unusual and  in the injury here would be our closing on the property all of these things we did not close until we thought that this issue was resolved and mr cook acknowledged that he nderground spring seems to pop up along randall road and since it's a natural circumstance and you decide you want to move the easement you're going to have to deal with this artesian spring that supposedly has now pop here supposedly the land or the hole that has to go to china it needs to build needs to be there in order to take care of the thirty's and spring if you want to move it you're not going to be able to charge the county to fill up  highlight point you won't know until you decide to move it whether or not at the time you move it that was the size of the hole that they needed at that time if at the to move it they shouldn't have to pay you because they are they're using those excess to five ten or fifteen acre feet if they decide to get deeper hole that's correct ok and i said this is very speculative we property we do for the golf course and on come back and tell us you want the golf course there because the ball coming up but the bigger thing with the game is remember the owner of the plaintiffs isn't saying get off our property she's telling th she was telling the developer show dean to move you golf course telling him what to do with his property and that's what they tried to do that isn't applicable here at all in this situation they're trying to tell us they have the right to use our you know we can't tell them to get off our property in this isn't just putting water on the minds of it's a three point two eight your personal property in which they remove five point six acres of land and lead up to two hundred sixty feet oh this isn't just an easement they're mention of what he claims was the main thrust of back me and did that prove the point that i raised earlier with you credibility determinations are made by the trial right so again you're arguing credibility asking us to two and two car garage with a a small ship and onto two against the side of the garage for things such as bicycles and no water wings and things like that and then when push comes to shove the person who's and on to the garage so will you told me that i could add on to the garage that supposedly you give them easily to to the other party who lives on the other side of the property line  and then those are the types of lawsuits that we would be seen running rampant throughout the court rooms of this district does not seem more appropriate than well no and the other thing is we we