if you are arguing on behalf of an appellant can you just let us know how much time you reserve the clerk may call the first case one is the substantive claims turning first to the statute of limitations we submit to this court that the district court erred in its determination that the core the case was barred by statute of limitations because the district court relied on a report that was dated in two thousand and nine but there was no disclosure of that or any information to a palance that that report existed until some time thereafter and well i mean isn't part of your theory that your client believed all the way back to i think one thousand nine hundred on that he was being targeted he believed back that far but did not know it's one of those situations where he kept hoping things would get back but the straw that broke the camel's back was being named as a criminal suspect and f man who's never had just doesn't have any drug problems doesn't smoke a cigarette as a member of armed forces you know a member of the coast guard is he serious uniform today this was hugely upsetting to him more than  just all the other abuses he had taken over the years this was the last drop and that all that i mean let's focus for a moment just say on the parking lot trolls which which you say were excessive he was targeted for those i mean if those are going on for ten years shouldn't he be charged with that knowledge and not have two thousand and nine ten years later be the day where he's deemed to to be aware more and more and more and more until you get to the point of two thousand and nine two thousand and ten two thousand and eleven the lawsuits filed in two thousand and twelve and then it magically stops and you don't have any runs in twelve you don't have any runs in thirteen which are  unusual in comparison to what happened if this was such a terrible place with such an demick problems why after the filing of the lawsuit doesn't magically disappear so yes well there were things that we believe support the continuing violations theory it didn't all coalesce until the time of this false police report and the when he learned of the false police report is when it in two thousand  patrolling became even more greater more greater and greater even if the court were to say ok you know here's the point to bar the entire lawsuit for things that happened after two thousand and nine minutes on or about it that he didn't learn of any of the his rights he would not have known about this police report we could not have known in two thousand i in fact the testimony from officer curley made clear that this was a confidential investigation there was no information there was nothing out there he only learned of that when miss bowling was arrested and then began to do things to protect his rights to find out information to get further information even at the time this case we're taking depositions there are things that were not disclosed as the name suppose the name of the informant and things like that so all the it was not possible for him to have done anything earlier if he had sued in two thousand four hundred student two thousand and five it wouldn't have a related to this instance what we know is what would have happened but at that point they were said well it's not large enough it's not enough instances i think what it shows from one thousand nine hundred ninety four it is you have as we show in our continuing violation a pattern of continuing discrimination in selective enforcement toward this patrol the bar more than other bars was the deposition testimony of paul is that is that fair or will i wouldn't say that that was fair because as we lay out in our statement of facts in the complaint in appellate brief what we did was in the absence of getting documents or any discovery as we went through all the m l c sea reports for all of the other businesses to show how many times they had been other businesses in the area had been reported i significantly less than ours how many other runs there were significantly lasting crowd but they say at least a hundred of these rounds were initiated by somebody calling them or there were only two that were coming from the bar and that's the evidence that we put in our statement of facts and we refer it to the record none of that is supported by any evidence which we pointed out in our reply brief that in the parking lot as we lay out in page eleven of our statement of facts the packing light has but it's a large parking lot that's got other businesses including value world which is a very low income like thrift store type place so it's got lots of other businesses that that could bring in a different type of element one of the the efforts while in the other parts of the parking lot these things are going on the cars are being parked at cracker jack so they're not even tying in something that happens over by value world to them to cracker jacks but they're putting the police cars i mean is that is that a fair characterization i mean she basically just as you know they came to our bar much more than other bars she says that statement but she says it is a challenge how do you had personal experience with other establishments to know that they were picking in this one i think her testimony is very telling about how the focus of all of this was not really her but it was mr gladstone and some of the things that were being done she she i think was very eloquent in about being put into a van and had pictures of her family there and being told if you give us information about mr gladstone you know we'll do things so just not normal wouldn't marry type of arrest to situations that would come about if there were indeed a legitimate situation is we point out in the prefer it continues to be didn't just stop the continued on he you know it's it to this day has issues this a slightly different question  because of the statute of limitations issue and whatnot there are other issues that probably didn't get as lashed out as they might never that hadn't been involved in the case but the only defendant in this case is the township of clinton and city of cincinnati situation we also say though overall that is part of the information that we put forth in our continuing violation information is that there was a longstanding practice of discrimination against appellants in this you're looking at somebody who isn't even the head of the party correct but he was able to have enough influence to create this i mean the facts themselves when compared to other people create a situation where we have done as the  court has held in other cases you can have even one instance at times being enough to justify in one nine hundred eighty three action here you have a situation where you've got the power of the township being used  n the township you have an officer girling you have only up to the chief prosecutor that's being part of the play on to execute this custom and practice of discrimination there's no one who comes forward and says we disavow this was a rogue officer he shouldn't have done this it was improper this is not how the township normally acts there's not ever been that argument in this case it's always about no we did this this was adopted by the township and we've done this but isn't it right that only two of those involved crackerjacks and that there are you know for this comparative purpose i think for the ten fish there were five tell me how the liquor commission reports helps make your case if other a stablished that's had more claims against the don't actually we had the most claims there were nine that were filed against our establishment and so and they were last for other establishments throughout there are forty some classy liquor license establishments in clinton township and my understanding was you only had two liquor license violations you know there were more than that  thank you morning rachel battlements you have the township i think that pointed out an important facet of the case and that is that this is a case against clinton township there needs to be an official policy or custom that's alleged before we even get to the statue limitations question the reality is that there is no official policy or custom that's been pledged or proven in this case the idea is that they were out patrolling more often than normal but there is no indication that that was a policy of someone or that that was how the officers and clinton township were directed to patrol plec her projects just a coincidence you know presumably bunch of different officers all happened to do this allegedly you know for a ten year period or whatever the allegation at the time that we found our motion for summary disposition became that there was some sort of a romantic relationship between gravity at the police department and i think it's very important that that that came out there at the end because what we became the chief in two thousand and seven so any any acts that happened even if we accept as true the proposition that freeney was involved somehow and directing something they were done by two thousand and seven and that is unequivocal testimony from chief possible and sergeant girling there is absolutely nothing including the plaintiff's own testimony i'm sorry the opponent on testimony that disputes that or refutes that in fact he testified that he doesn't know if his establishment was patrolled more often than others he just thinks so what about the fact that you didn't produce mr frayne you're offering for deposition i mean you were sending him pension checks or something how in the world was he not produce that that is  extraordinarily inappropriate assertion on the part of the collins and i can tell you that we offered to produce mr brainy we offer to do it in florida we offered to bring him here because he visited michigan for the summer we we re working on courting a schedule and the issue died there was no deposition no dissent just immersed they just did discovery then closed there was no request to reopen it and set the deposition there was no deposition notice there was no motion to compel us is inappropriate now to say that there was some more discovery that should have been done that we didn't permit if you don't file a motion to compel you you didn't do anything and the reality is we were offering i thought your response was that you didn't know the point if i took his address i doubt that there is a document that we submitted and i don't think we submitted any letter in on the record so you didn't send a letter with his address or an e mail address we often do communicate by e mail our offices i couldn't well you sitting here today that we did do that as opposed to talk on the phone but i can tell you that that there there was no affirmative action taken by the plant while this case was pending to to to require the deposition they notice his deposition never really never sent a notice for his deposition and we end the case at that we would produce them in florida immediately or we would produce them in michigan in the summertime it was not a formal every there was no request there was no formal request there was no formal motion and so to say now that is that that we did not allow the deposition of mr frank is inappropriate the reality is that it wouldn't have helped their case to depose mr freni it helps their case more to say they didn't give us mr frey any and so you know that that is the reason in my opinion that the deposition was not noticed and that the deposition was not taken and and furthermore chief possible that is the chief in two thousand and seven so we have this timeframe and all c c reporting in two thousand and he certainly knows the workings of the entire department by two thousand and seven when he becomes the chief so the idea that that everything that is claimed to be discriminatory is a discre e it is my position and to go if if he if someone actually had a policy of excessive or more than other individual businesses surveillance or presence in the parking lot you would say that it is a discreet each time a police officer drives into that parking lot insisting that they have it exactly where i was going so so if i was involved what was was where i was going his involvement ended by at least two thousand and seven but that's not my question my question is how is it a discrete if if a if a police officer comes by a business one time i don't understand how you would say well this is one disagree that that's a cause of action but if a police officer comes by business ten times a day for three hundred sixty five days don't you have held these cases are often treated much like a hostile work environment it's not the discrete that creates the calls of action it's the continuation of a pattern of actions that creates a discriminatory impact isn't it i would agree with you with that analysis however in this case what is being alleged and what the plaintiff or appellant specifically testified as to be alleged in what the record shows is that over a period of about ten years there were one hundred  eighty two police responses to this location of those nearly every single one involved a call from a patron or an employee of cracker jacks to come to six to the requests for police assistance and what the court just required recognized is that the township police department isn't out there three hundred sixty five days there's no evidence that they're out there discriminatorily monitoring are patrolling this location the evidence shows that they're out there in response to a please several times a day for a half throughout this time period so that's evidence isn't it actually i would take i would take issue with that misspelling testified that there was there were police oftentimes at the location her testimony was that there were a lot of fights that went on at cracker jacks and there were a lot of there was a lot of underage drinking that was being monitored at all of this stablish men's and clint township there and in fact there were a sting operations that went to moscow by ours in clinton township and the same night and so there was police presence in cracker jacks according to the christian polling in response to cause she testified that it was either a minor in possession investigation or that it was in response to a col there were a lot of fights there were police out there all the time because of what was going on with the patrons at cracker jacks in fact the appellant's own brief in this case indicates that the parking lot was a problem and their position as but the parking lot was an all crackerjacks parking lot the parking lot was also know he has absolutely no indication no support for the theory that car while bowser slap sticks was patrolled any differently he has he has no indication that police officers didn't drive past those  establishments and make sure that they weren't drunk drivers leaving the parking lot of those two to show discriminatory conduct he has to show that someone out similarly situated to him is being treated differently what he has is a claim that he thinks that the dismissed because it's not a matter of whether or not please were at his establishment it's a matter of whether he was treated differently than other class establishments on the evidence is that he wasn't and it's undisputed up and it's his own testimony and we cited in our brief is i don't know i don't know what the if they were treated differently you know i suspect that that the police were out at all the different bars you know and making sure that drunk drivers weren't leaving the parking lot at various times i  that minor possession sting operations would go from bar to bar to bar in a particular night it is so to that end you know he knew that he was being treated the same and it comes down to them this two thousand and nine investigation which i think is important that it's now the focus of the appellant because you have the two thousand and investigation is an investigation of him it begins as an investigation of him and there's no you have no liberty or property interest in being free from being the target of an hundred eighty three claim to be free from being the target of a follow up investigation on a confidential informant makes that report the fact that the confidential made informant made that rick it is undisputed the fact that the confidential informant was credible is undisputed and  the fact that there was follow up and when mr gladstone the appellant was not found to be the distributor after the first bite his name was taken off the reports suggest that there is no discriminatory contact a certainly doesn't give give rise to nine hundred eighty three or liberty or property interests claim the fact is that that the appellant was suspected of doing something an investigation occurred which is the clinton police department's job to do when he wasn't identified during the first of four by his at this liquor stablish men of crack cocaine from the head bartender his name was taken off the reports in the focus shifts to somebody else appropriately which are in agreement that he would not have known that his name was in poor until january two thousand i would agree with that i would agree that he would he would not have known but i would submit that it doesn't matter because in order to get to add that to the selective enforcement  series of events that supposedly give rise to this claim that two thousand and nine two thousand and ten event has to involve some violation of a constitutional right it has to involve some selective enforcement of the lot and the reality is it doesn't it involves a confidential informant making a report and the spun township police department following up on it in fact sergeant girling had no prior no knowledge up and now been involved but had not had anything to do with mr gladstone prior to getting that information from his confidential informant and following up on it so so i would submit your crack judge that that probably didn't know but it doesn't matter because that doesn't tie on to the strength of the supposedly other selective enforcement claims if the police patrolling excessively or making us stops and harass those those issues would be separate from from this one because those issues arguably involve some discriminatory conduct in the situation there in the two thousand and nine situation there's absolutely no evidence of any discriminatory conduct in fact there is no indication at all in this record or anywhere that that anybody from the country please brown had written received similar information from a confidential informant or otherwise about some other liquor  department so we have to be able to show with respect to that two thousand and nine two thousand and ten investigation we have to meet the man now standard we have to be able to show under menow that we have powerless either custom official policy or custom that caused a constitutional deprivation that official policy or press him would be we are going to investigate information about drug buys and a bar that are given to us by confidential informant but we're only going to investigate them as to mr gladstone and not as to the bar next door there's absolutely of their claim and it's very important because number one there's no liberty or property in trust and being free from being a suspect in an investigation as long as that investigation is conducted properly and it was then there is no dispute of that and number two this is  this isn't about sergeant girling and whether he should have done something different with the information that he got the question under analysis whether there's an official policy or custom and there is not in this case for that reason we said met that that summary judgment was properly granted and we  reported nine different times from one thousand nine hundred nine forward so i and the dates and so forth were in the first paragraph and then at those docket numbers in fact what came out the docket evidence that actually shows that much of with all due respect to the sister council much of what was said is not supported by the record with respect to the freeney matter and we actually did send a notice of deposition that's why the day before the deposition we received a letter from them saying they're not going to produce in the next day because they didn't know where he was that letter is on the docket that is in the record before the court are nineteen to twenty two page eighty four ninety nine to five zero one did you notice  there isn't anything that has been near where he was or that he was in florida or any offer any profit i mean the record evidence is there there's nothing from a tally to show you that any of the record evidence that we put in about training is untrue so it's somewhat frustrating to hear these things when i've got the r page ten of our brief the record citations are there only nine involved drug buys the rest were just there there were calls from patrons they want to cause none of that's been substantiated you have nothing in the rockridge in front of you to substantiate any of that the reason we took all of those hundred eighty reports and analyzed them in our statement of facts and put record citation numbers next to mr show you that none of that is correct and of what is correct that that it's all cross from patrons it's all drug by sits  who does this supposed by and i'll get to that in a moment it's not framing who himself is doing the drives the continued in tencent force meant he's been able to get others in the department to do this no one in the department stops it not till the lawsuit is filed and then the lawsuit is filed and manically somehow the policy it stops in the policing stops so that's the part that doesn't make sense if this were just a rogue officer or if it wasn't a policy or practice going on it would have not been to the level it had and it wouldn't involve as many people in that l l c officers the the drive by officers all of the rest of them when a captain has substantial authority with brainy retired he retired i believe just right after we filed the lawsuit i believe in two thousand and twelve so maybe a few months afterward oh the with respect to the  claim that we were treated differently than other stablish notes there is nothing in the record to show you that mr glass don't testify differently and are very differently that they were treated differently misspending testified that you don't have any testimony from anyone contradicting that mr grueling said i personally may have driven by others as much i don't know but you have no department nothing from the department one of the things you would think they would produce to you other records from cabo wabo in and slap six and everybody saying see we went there a hundred eighty times they didn't produce the records in fact they refused to do they said they weren't relevant so one of the way so we've we've established we have after we've heard that these are the facts you have no evidence from the township to contradict check the record issues that all discuss this morning thank you so much for coming call the next case