someone before the local liquor commission and it was the strangest proceeding that i have ever been in because well it was noticed stuff and hearing and while at the beginning of the we're asking for a directive finding that there was a violation of section three the f twenty eight of the local ordinance and then mr t well wait a moment i'll leave the room for a few minutes and i'll come back and then mr turner left the room and then he comes back and he says that he's talked to someone here inside city hall and the lawyer inside city hall told him go ahead and rule on liability against the license holder and go in that all three volumes of the federal transfer into the proceeding and that's what he did then we were we were trying to figure out what to do in that circumstance or i was and the i did make an objection for the record about alf these transcripts did not mean the former just a moaning parameters of the million transcripts on the whole but at the same time when these transcripts were offered they were not offered as to any specific pieces of evidence inside them fourth district case from one thousand nine hundred sixty one forty nine no thirty six twenty seven where the court said that if somebody a yes q former testimony coming in on a proceeding then you have to actually the court holds in that case of due process in the in so we were also accused in this of that when i was trying to sort of think on my feet when th happened with mr first names will you lose i also brought up the fact that i thought that they were going to be relying on collateral estoppel even though they were insane collateral estoppel when they were saying what the effect of what they were saying that because of the fence prior federal proceeding in which an employee of the licensee had been convicted by a jury that that somehow found the employer in this case and we could not present a defense that we would we we were they didn't say a staff that we were stopped from presenting at the fence on liability and so i laid the record as best as i can offer proof i so that we have that in the federal proceeding that they were relying on so heavily that there has been a contention that there has been insurance coverage in the amount of thousand dollars for cash on hand and that well that was stated during the fell over cd nobody ever brought any evidence in one way or the other of the proceedings about whether those insurance documents in fact existed or what they said and i said well i've got those insurance documents with me the day i procured them and so our defense was going to be in front of the city liquor commission and stole the cash if it was more than ten thousand dollars they wouldn't be covered by insurance and we presented numerous pages of insurance policy declarations john that's a good case but then when the offer but it's the same as allowed in the brief on appeal it's been the same way so they were they all response to an argument of our they'll say well they tried to raise that at the liquor commission level have a conviction of a licensee sure there will be a level of stop you couldn't you couldn't try to say it wasn't true but where you never have the opportunity to participate in that proceeding if you're the license in the federal case because if you go over the transcripts of the federal case the federal prosecutor gets up at the end of these bases closing argument and he says where are the insurance policies violent they admitted those eleven's you know for keeping things blow ten thousand dollars then as we pointed out before the local leopard medicine for the first time somebody had asked the insurance agent for those papers when we were going into the hearing so the  people who represent of the the former employee didn't present that public trial so we thought we should have a trial on liability what it turned into was a trial on a penalty what was going to be the penalty buried in the desert and i think that then the penalty phase was trying to blame everything that happened within a mile of my client business on my client that there was litter that was all there was people who are throwing  vile in the yards and things like that and then that was a penalty but that was not a liability that was that was we were allowed to present evidence in the penalty phase and question witnesses but we sure weren't allowed to question any witnesses was cut short like ours was and was found to be so lacking in the fundamental principles of our system of justice the procedure had to be condemned as a denial of of justice that was found to be a violation of due process all these people who testified at the federal trial none of them testify at this proceeding was all strictly this effort to submit these  scripts as but i thought they were trained as a minimum anyway was former at the moment now they never tried to offer any statement one by one basis or any evidence it was a wholesale employees but the rule is very very specific it's there if it has to be the the statement by a person authorize by the party to make a statement concerning the subject or a statement by the parties agent or service concerning the matter with the scope of the agency or employment quote made during the existence of the relationship in the case of in the case the one of the parties that they've been relying on has to be within the scope of employment the person whose years earlier about about check cashing in about what was done to these ten thousand dollar amounts and then with respect to the other two might decide who was the defendant in the criminal case in federal court and be the when we went before judge brandt we then raised the issue about whether the account in his ruling judge grants ruling whether the accountants testimony for the business that was given in judges and truffles and pigs into the into west law you'll find the federal courts are quite fond of the same that says that those are expected to look in the record like these are looking for ten years earlier and what we're supposed to post to contend with and that's the reason why former testimony like this is unfair to admit a case unless somebody agrees to have admitted which is which is what  the database in time is indicated in the notice of the charge which i think is the period of the indictment that he was acting as manager lawyer agent but i don't think that it was it was inviting c not the employee and we should have our own chance litigated we were unable to cross examine the witnesses in federal court nor were we able to present that insurance information in federal court to the scenes be you know in the if the person who's convicted of something is then coming into an administrative proceeding with a lesser standard of proven beyond a reasonable doubt but they have transfers like so if i if i get found guilty in a minute or my an associate who works for me did something and now they're saying there and he got convicted of something and they're contending that i didn't want to close them up or something i think they've got to prove that he actually did it the side that were answered under the stipulation but there is no stipulation as to what that me and then i think is where there there is a little breakdown when there's no cross examination no opportunity to  plenty of money was coming in but they also knew mr assad that mr microsite did that they have to be under ten thousand dollars and just common sense with anything if your cash is only cover for ten thousand dollar store why in the world are the deposits and the withdrawals very close to ten thousand but not quite there i mean you would think that you know being a dollar over or a hundred dollars over ten thousand dollars you know that  the insurance explanation was valid or not if the criminal jury trial in federal court that was an issue that went back and forth them it was debated and everything but when we offered that we offered we try to admit the insurance papers into evidence those are pages see five nine percent see six o seven in the record though the insurance policy declarations the local liquor commissioner never said they were admitted into evidence when we offered to adopt them then there was an objection that were precluded there is the element liquor commission i don't think i ever referred to those insurance papers and their decision and then when they got to the circuit court the circuit court denied that they were even in the record of the insurance they information that we have to present that he apparently that sound in the record even though we have asserted that they were there and so they were not admitted in evidence and they were never considered by anybody because right before we offered those there was a finding of liability and that was left now i tried to fight back against this finding of liability and to make whatever offer proof i could the even when i asked to admit it after the finding was th i was fine and maybe i didn't do things earthly enough but i never faced a situation before where i was full the beginning of a hearing well we're not going to have a hearing because we're finding guilt right off the bat against actually storage preparation and sale of alcoholic liquor it doesn't include an office where the public doesn't go where liquors not sold where the sale of liquor doesn't occur or where letters not stored and so because of the definition of primacy in the city ordinance if it doesn't apply to just say that happens in five building or it relates to the business it's a very detail because chicago have an ordinance that sign from the city pretty close to the about whether a a store room that held liquor you know satisfy the words from the city for purposes i think they had drugs or something that they found in there but i it was it is a it is an issue and they have used the transcript to try to show that things happened on the premises and they've offered that for the truth  federal prosecutors recognize with the bank when they when they structure the indictment and they step back for the offense at them but they the iraqis does not investigate  violations of the ellen like check cashing statute which seems to be suggested here is the motive for the problem so that people would find out about the check asking that was going on that supposedly there thirty six months for the  we can submit the insurance information is well we're not asking for you to convey a victory we're asking for for a fair thank you we thank all of you for your argument