challenge service to do exactly that to challenge the presumption of service in this case it's particularly important in this case because the city never received the motion for sanctions but it was considered by the state house in fact it was one of the two issues that also made without reasonable cause that did not occur here and the l j did not find it in his recommended ordering decision notably in it's a word the state panel didn't even discuss in any great detail the second pro meeting things that he had heard about sergeant williams misusing police department resources i find to expensive office supplies and some other events she reckons has to fight after hearing those issues  practice to it on hearsay grounds i responded that it was not offered for the truth it was offered for the state of mind of a can and the l g admitted it for that limited purpose by its very nature state of mind testimony cannot be untrue and not made certainly cannot be first this was the first time that she they can ever testify in this matter testified at the hearing there was a deposition that chief bacon gave in a different matter and a federal court matter challenging the promotion on different grounds their challenge over on the record in that deposition that there were other things in his mind he just couldn't recall them at that time i have no doubt that the policeman's traveling pack of association will argue that she should have corrected is not enough because that does not support the independent require finding that the statements were made without reasonable cause or by law attack the state panel to discuss in any great detail that pronk of the tests which in and of itself is statement that chief economics contention with those played a part that's right a reasonable margin on his seat you know if they found that to be blatantly fall that's were motivated by these other things i don't believe you and fact are motivated by do you notice that is true in every case maybe not but those words those adjectives but that's the result in every case which is why i made without reasonable cause is the second prong of the test and there's no finding a bat in this case as the dissent pointed out the purpose of the rule is not to punish unsuccessfully like the city in this case limited to cases where a party file complete a proper stressed in money for an improper purpose that is not the case here and there was no finding from the a l j that in fact occurred she they can testify to what was in his mind at the time of the decision and the  that's the only time you test that's my point there are very there was only one time that she faked testified in this matter at that hearing i believe the stay panel was relying on the deposition not understanding that the deposition the other reasons there were and they're not in my mind he was whether or not he was prepared for that deposition i don't know but he clearly testified over and over again his reasons were there other reasons they're just not in my mind the trial in this matter was almost two years later maybe not quite eighteen months later this litigation went on her very long time in two forms which i think nine or ten days of her track to interrupted testimony the deposition was not close in time to this matter i we had a long distinguished career reputation for being dedicated to reporting the war and for helping britain well every briton having well written complete and accurate reports three of the shifting reasons were we've got a gap of time we've got him or a line on if us restoril suggested that in his deposition he relied primarily on or what was in his memory at that time were the lack of additional points and the comment about i will enjoy seeing you got it like a fish and he testified to both of those at the deposition would that be right would like to hear what you have to say why did you not promote and he gave no merit and efficiency reasons none of these other reasons were respect were stated that's point one point two is or during a real a federal court proceeding suspect is there is no evidence he did anything to validate their legitimacy and this gets to be a reasonable nature of what they'd hear in this case they broke the cardinal rule with respect to rule one three seven with respect pleading for the course they did not make a reasonable inquiry as to whether or not he's allegations were true or false and with respect to these three items three make an allegation in a pleading you have to make a reason and that was not done and that's what this is from our perspective with respect to the question of service  final judgment on the ground for one accident or mistake is limited to situations where the board service is male rules as the charging already noted that a david is a real bare bones affidavit it's and if you look at the cases cited in our brief you cite to a number of cases that say defendant or party cannot avoid service by mail by mere disclaimer and this affidavit is the functional equivalent of a disclaimer there is no statement as to efforts that were made in order to try to determine whether them the motion was ever received by the office it's just hey i didn't get it and if we were to accept that as a reason to reverse the board's decision then it would be very difficult for parties in the board to rely upon service by mail because you would always have the doubt did the other party actually receive it we have to check with them before you issue a motion and so the city has conceded that the board service by mail rules are valid but if you were to accept the would like to get across deals with the exceptions neither the charging party nor the board has taken the position that because you don't file exceptions you can't later test motion for sanctions that's a straw person but the  brief argued is that the factual findings in the a l j suspicion are binding on the basis of their failures suctions and the l g s factual findings were so strong that they're in essence they've they've already while that l j didn't use the magic words without reasonable cause as just disconnect the part that you would clothing they are j might as well in the findings were so strong now only prevailing party i mean the losing party is being punished simply for mounting a defense this is a case where they o j made very strong factual findings not only disbelieving their explanation but finding it as additional evidence of animals in a case such as that sanctions are well within the court's expression and if they fail to file exceptions they can later try to attack the factual underpinnings of the court's sanctions decision the final point that the board would like to stress is that once the elements are met for sanctions under the courts rule that a statement was false statement was made without reasonable cause then the board has discretion whether or not decision was well within the court's fresh if you look at the cases where sanctions decision has been reversed there was absolutely no basis for the board's sanctions decision the court sanctions decision ported net lightly impose sanctions in this case as pointed out by the charging forty party their motion for sanctions as for sanctions on the basis of the ants the city's answer to the charge as well as on the basis of the chief's test during the board finds john for sanctions on the basis of the answer giving them the benefit of the doubt but found that the chiefs testimony and conduct of the trial was was sanctions on his on the board is certainly well within its discretion to impose sanctions upon the motion of a party even if they are shaded now that's a sponsor of sanctions the r j may have decided that if a party board may impose based on the facts of a particular case i don't believe that the city has argued that some sanctions would be appropriate but fees and costs are an excessive sanction their position seems to be days order which is of course in the record quite sad as in addition to saying the chiefs reasons were far off he suggests that they could be true by stating even if the decision to promote williams was not motivated by own order six jass that this is not without a reasonable basis without reasonable cause to believe to be untrue he did not state that it was about without reasonable cause and in fact suggested that it could have been but still would have been ss that is not the case here