would not be moot the governing authority would be  reason to dismiss for movement and indeed the continuing viability of a right of recovery of anybody in the prospect of class because there was no certification of mclaughlin as of yet either certainly save the case for moving  well the records that will be seen on appeal when a case of movies after an appeal or not mooted arguably are the possibility is raised the record won't contain the facts but in mclaughlin they went outside the record and i could ask this court to go outside the record as well you'll see that within the record there are cases where other asked page eleven you'll see that my client is an advantage gambler who applied a legal trade initially make a living as an advantage gambler legally gambling in the vatican is a card counter yes your honor and you'll also see was in the record that there are other costs fines challenges for persons in my client's position and i would represent t court admittedly going a bit outside the record but still as an officer of the court i myself have participated in and received one thousand six seven eight judgments out an alliance points out that what you cannot expect somebody will go out and break the law and actually distinguish somebody mr vincent circumstances somebody who can expect to see this happen again and  tries to undertake this living it does not have to be a certain take it has to be a reasonable likelihood and subsequent supreme court authority has indicated that there has to be a reasonable probability and that is something that we have here and this is a case that can't be mooted that way i would suggest and also loughlin says that it would not be a move in any event and then turning to the merits of the case itself your hon versus w t grant they all stand for one proposition and that proposition is you cannot sequester constitutionally sequester property of one party in favor of another party without a for the benefit and solely for the benefit of the defendant pending resolution of the ultimate outcome it's taken and held without any without any fearing on the likelihood of  was not a judgment determining as money damages as of yet but under no batter authority his money would continue to be held by the defendant until such time as a final judgment w cost and yet they say that there's a rational basis actually under connecticut versus door you have to have the hearing and that the taking analysis i would also point out and i would just highlight this for the court we're dealing with las vegas here at any given point ten to twenty five percent of the people in that city are not residents of that city we are blessed with having a population of a million three hundred thousand of which two hundred fifty thousand of them are not are not residents but are taxpayers and this state has taken away the rights of those people this is not isolated incidental consequences that could re restriction on travel it requires strict scrutiny it cannot pass strict scrutiny thank you very much you know you should really get someone who is an interested party in here to actually have a national case or controversy if you're going to see that if you send wide sweeping decision on all the states that is inspiring interesting thank you gamblers or two other people who were card counting or advantage gambling at a casino so it is there is stuff in the record this does happen repeatedly and you have my representation as an officer of the court of a judgement sort of verdicts as well for just this type of activity  not be a cure on amendment because the court has is empowered to grant whatever relief a party is entitled to under the notice that is given in their pleading and in our complaint we definitely notify the defendant that there is a hundred eighty three violation here and involves holding money i notice my time is up i would point out that the state of nevada case that was cited with that is the statement that they have the inherent which when you say that we can take notice of fact beyond the record is likely yes your honor because next case they had a public defender and they made the assumption beyond the record that he would have