so you'll hear questions coming from over the microphone will be from johns hopkins we're going to call the calendar as it is listed in the first case times today's calendar is disabled rights action committee versus two specific propert encountered discrimination and under the statute and related decisions including the hyde memorandum it was clear that he had standing so i didn't focus on the complaint i asked him before he issue in this case which is regardless of any question about how the fair housing act is constructed have the plaintiffs here set out an injury that is cognizable under article three and the fact of the are absolutely and that really should be i think the focus of the court's inquiry as you evaluate and decide on this case and examining the injuries that have been alleged here there really is in terms of the have dealt with that statute of limitations when it's triggered and when it is told and that is i think a much more complicated issue than i would like it to be representing builders but what we have here is people who i like to use simple analogies and so this is my analogy my ability to play major league baseball is constrained by the fact that i'm no good at it but since about the age of eight i've had no interest in playing major league baseball so the fact that they only allow good players to play major league baseball has not caused me any injury because i've never had any interest in pursuing it the plaintiffs in this case have spent we don't live in these places and we have no interest in living in these places overall economic impact on the market being in addition to having an injury recall the article freestanding requires that at that injury be traceable to the conduct of the defendant and we were addressable by a remedy judged against that defendant so when you are saying i have an interest overall in having good available housing to disable people in the las vegas community and in your attempt to try and vindicate that is by pursuing a single suit against a single builder how is that one builders conduct traceable to fixing the overall market in the hall and how is a claim against that builder going to regret the issue of the market as a whole remember that we're not just talking about the ability of private persons to have to enforce these actions that's not their only remedy they can go to the government they can file administrative complaints with but eventually they can pursue the case on him through the justice department as your honor pointed out that was done in this case there are other ways to address that more global in general issue what is the overall economic impact of housing stock in the market but nobody here has  id my particular economic circumstances were adversely affected nobody has done i had to pay more for a condo because i wanted an acceptable one activity versus pantsuit the individuals here they go in they observe conditions and that much less than what the testers in cases like haven or any of the other racial fair housing cases do they go and they actually receive information your call one of the principle basis of finding standing for those individuals under thirty six zero four d which reports all people a right to not receive any misrepresented information about housing and that's how in four d misrepresentation in that case you could afford thirty six zero four b standing to the testers unfortunately that kids really doesn't give this court any guidance because just poster never discussed what the nature hidden camera with that person who was watching on a camera have standing that i think is what they're trying to do when they see merely driving by literally under their interpretation if they drilled by a complex and so i stepped on a sidewalk that person's then has observed a discriminatory condition and has the right to do that i'm short on time i would like to really briefly address the organizational standing issue if i may go and and this court decision in homes talked about what the diversion has to be in order to go forward organizational standing and i believe that both span and calls talked about diversion from other activities  ed the complaint while the motion was pending and they never gave the court any concrete thing other than saying well we can amend the complaint to make it right they never gave them any means to say this is what we're going to say to make it right my time's up and i