of my bringing this litigation was to was to challenge him of the pac man and when i meant the lurd the i'm sorry why not alert the judge to the fact that that's what you were doing the rules don't require professional don't remember the rule off the top of my head i didn't realize that was likely to be an issue this morning neither today but i will look at it didn't answer the tension you question if i may you know the whole point of my bringing this was the challenge him play and when i had raised these very same issues in an earl and that was sort of what i had expected to happen in this case instead they didn't do that they began to treat this case as if it were going to actually be litigated and i felt that  abusive correct sir just one isn't correct that the operative complaint in this case had fifty nine counts that's what that's probably correct yes judge or earth that's the that's  would first of all mention response to the question asked by judge hamilton as to the council with fifty nine counts in the operative complaint counts directed against up to twenty individual city defendants the city a frock for it at the county and several county employees citing a stream of constitutional issues but go into their arguments relating to the c f rocker defendants plaintiff failed suit challenge to magistr time on appeal however even if he does not forfeit his right his argument fails on its merits he did not challenge it before the district court in his briefs before this court he does not  only charge a motion for summary judgment for false arrest was granted based on the criminal housing management which was the charge which the prosecutor eventually dismissed  but when do you think the plaintiff's attorney was obliged to inform the court about the problem here i believe that's what sanctions would be appropriate here and i believe that the time of the fall of filing the complaint i when was he obliged to tell court about that i believe that may be an argument probably from my codefendant out speak to the best i can right i just speak for the c f rochefort defendants i believe that at the time i the earliest factually inaccurate and unsupported by the record because the city a flock of defendants initially filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiff's complaint parts of plaintiff's complaint was dismissed on grounds of a capacity suit statute of limitation grounds and failure to state a claim and that was the claims that survived the original motion to dismiss that the c f rockford move to be dismissed in summary judgment grounds and at the time that plaintiffs sought extension of discovery the discovery that  related to counts that were previously dismissed counts that he did not refile and counts that had no discovery that had no connection to the remaining counts before the court you there not a question that brought this action against them alleging that matthew liston's drafting and trail of filing of an i have that initially answered this complaint only because he also included a conspiracy count that included the two officers that were involved in the  the indictment that did charge disorderly conduct for not talking to police officer however it's my understanding those officers like mr montana said also arrested his client on criminal housing management as well i answered because at the time i answered it with my understand my belief that the conspiracy allegations that he response raise the challenge to him or that has been briefed in this court or that was raised  i believe the response that's been raised in this court was raised to the rule to show cause the judge compile a raise because that was the first time myself or the court i believe were made aware of the challenge that mr rodman is raising on appeal