and plans on a water treatment plant eight miles away we've got lots of things and we look through those things and found they have a nineteen billion dollar project freshwater a lot of places they have bought five well sites project not something to assure themselves that they can get there was i think it's out there just in the meantime the injunction case moved along and we had a couple hearings on it and we have never gotten anything that we asked for what we got yes we never got one thing we thought was ok and that is what do they have to assure themselves they can get to their well sites after the injunction  so we're here on that question and the freedom of information act case we have gone through several months of ass asking for documents and the one smoking gun document wanted all along s the reason why we were where we were so i think now the other consolidated you can look cute together in the timeline together and the reasoning as to why you made the requests and why so we're here seeking peace in both of those cases but the reasons i outline information act was used merely discovery purposes and you can restated that today as a streamline for discovery just to simply protect his interest in the road and looking in that case he also specifically filed a counter  makes it ready readily apparent that mr taylor's motive was simply to use the freedom of information act to streamline discovery and does that matter to us as far as reaching a decision in this case i believe it does because also in looking at the actual request i think just turn and you asked counsel if there was a specific request pressing the access to those well sites i don't believe they'll find the record as any such quest when we're talking about plans and specifications it refers to the water project that in turn is why mr taylor was provided by names of documents because of his passion in the sense that they wanted to know what was going on with the water project we provided copies of the plans for the plane itself the access or the water lines everything that we have that you provided wasn't an attempt to have a smoke and mirrors and hide something within those referencing that after is the case was dismissed there was a specific request in a magically the stocking that appeared that request and specifically how do you intend to access roads and reference stocking rain so we believe it's somewhat disingenuous to contend that that was the only issue at trial before the trial court and appellant mr taylor acknowledges this and when he states in his brief brief it's hard to know what is out there it's hard to know ask for when you don't know what's out there i think that's setting a dangerous precedent if you leave the responding party to a freedom of information act request to guess what they want that's why we write everything that we felt th which was attached to the brief does outline the court heard arguments of counsel and was familiar with pleadings but there was more to it she did go judgement no one to go on the record to state her reasoning and set forth why she believed these sanctions were warranted and we've touched on those reasons i believe city of virginia did renegotiate with the stocks in his edge of purchase additional lands outside of that agreement to construct a road and is in the process of analyzing whether it's costly for them to construct rates of that i think further questions their argument that that was obviously farmland that would be utilized within a month or two  you not receive that you requested he went on to state that those aspects regarding the engineering and the testing that was done he just couldn't comprehend how it's going to be sufficient water i think that in turn goes back to the information act request being more than just a discovery purpose to protect the road but overall his objection to the wells and the water project being in the vicinity of this farm that you have a yes what it was we were trying to find out the very why would you buy well sites that are so many feet apart and then expect t why they would start a project and not have a nail that they had to have bailed out somewhere they would have paid that much money from all sides so i don't think the city wide to give us that agreement because it was just easier not that turn out that way and the other thing is it appears from mr thomas argument that they built this whole project around their presumption that they could just use heavy equipment on my clients my area and do what they want to do without filing any sort of lawsuit for just compensation which is even more reason why the case was filed against him is frivolous not i would as a condemnation  when you put it together with him filed shows no basis in fact or asking anybody ever talk to the taylors were suits were filed it's the road not that i'm aware of but you and i don't know