and i'm deeply grateful for this afternoon to address this family forty years ago i was admitted to practice this year and during that time i've come to understand the very great importance of both our power cords and our jurors in protecting the rights the constitutional rights and the right to redress that everyone has to have under our constitution and this is one of those situations sadly where for a number of different reasons the trial court failed to see the importance and recognize the importance of the questions of fact that are squarely there not just a burka which we anybody could be held accountable for giving rendering a factual understanding what happened during that incredible amount of time but in this situation after six hours of intense beating and after everyone else sort of fell asleep at three o'clock in the morning you mentioned schuster it's restraints and get loose and i would submit that but for this the cover up that occurred here there's no question in the world that that tissue all the things that weapon tape recorder all the things that could been recovered if anyone had just done some of the basic things that should have been done with any practicing it should've been secured well counsel given the holding where is there any obligation to investigate crimes since there's no obligation to protect people against crime why is there an obligation to investigate crimes because that's what we pay our police department no no  no you have to answer a question about the supreme court's decision in dish aney by addressing the significance of the shane well i think the problem with this with the decision the shame which we almost let's discuss problems with the decision do you any we have no authority to question it we are here to apply it you have to tell us why your theory is compatible with the holding of the sha that there is no entitle meant to protection from crime we all have to recognize there's no protection from where that happens the case you just heard is riddled with crime if you would this is your opportunity to shame i think i think what we have here is an intentional i'm not asking what we have here i am asking about the legal significance  the significance of the shining as i understand it is that the police does not have an obligation to protect people that does not mean that when they do their job that they can ignore their duties and responsibilities and completing a proper investigation you know that's exactly what dick cheney holds to shane holds that is a matter of federal constitutional law you have no right to protection and you have no right to have the police follow whatever their obligat if they have obligations under state law you have a claim under state law now that's mostly what your brief sounds like your brief sounds like there is a claim under state law but the us constitution in one nine hundred eighty three do states so i wonder why you haven't sued in state court under state law you know as for a good question i will have to think about that i don't know the answer as to the ability to to address it was state law but i do know is that the this situation evidence was destroyed there was a norm and the cover up contributed to america that waiting to at least two individuals completely got away constitutional rights i think you can find that evidence by looking at the barrack of america fact that someone would be so brazen a place russian resort gratian to know that there is not going to be a discipline imposed for you know who testified to dismiss routinely done when a police officer might be involved in a crime or a cover up that it would be ignored i mean it just can't be that officers believe that's not enough from o b l well we have i think that that a burka is a very important case as are some of the other cases that we cite along that same line that cases because the police and in the city of chicago know that there is no training no accountability and talk after two thousand and six two thousand and eleven there is no ethics training the risk no requirement that they measure up to the kinds of standards of integrity that we would hope our police officers would have to measure and there was no enforcement in certainly take notice of what the reports were that were filed and presented as evidence within a burka and have been well published in the reviews and elsewhere is well known is common knowledge in the se chicago that less than one percent of the chicago police departments ever subjected to any sort of discipline we have a union contract that now allows every police officer basically to get a clean record after seven years thanks sponge everything off the record there minutes she settled we don't know for how much the judge took into consideration the fact that he got an eighty thousand dollars settlement which they stand the way he's described that it's probably not very much  settled for something in there must be admissions and all of that and that's what i you know these last two to which way they sort of i don't know what you want to say just didn't pursue i in the money we were placed in a situation where we had an extraordinary and difficult time proving this case the reason as as as on the record of showing that we have mended our complaint to include an individual fifth amendment so we have a situation where it was the corporate and i think that's it maybe no one but the defense was kind of on behalf of garlic trucking was a corporate defense and so he even obtained anything by way of settlement from that it's basically insurance companies don't actually put up any money out of their pocket and insurance company to accept do that she did come up with some money where that came from we don't know that either but we were left of the situation where we have a man who has permits this regiment who lost a tooth because of a gun but hitting him in the face we have no ability to prove that there was a tape recorder recording that was being made that was lost we ha minute found those other the perpetrators those sleeping on the premises who were drinking and having a wonderful time consuming drugs as they were beating mr rossley within an inch of his life and he has permanent vision problems because of that officers as a matter of rigid rules from getting involved with combatant with felons and that's none reduce reviewed on a case by case basis none of those things were ever brought to light and catherine tube was not interviewed and so over three and a half years after the incident occurred by anybody from internal affairs by anybody from the chicago police department it really wasn't until they have surveyed the from channel two news broke the story almost six months later that finally started people started taking some action but by then as the record shows the carpet been replaced the whole place had been cleaned up i'm sure all of the city makes a big thing about rope and an extension cords and things like that are common tools found with and construction sites those common tools would out of it blot out what that which they would have that night or even within the next day perhaps they would not have had d n a on the wrist tape that had you know i'm sure human tissue and hair and things like that it was it was an amazing scene as it's been described to me that occurred there so these two individuals walked away altogether this evidence in fact was allowed to be destroyed and that's something that should not have ever happened it's that is the kind of and i and i do agree with judge easterbrook that to some extent that would also be a state point but it was all being done under color state law the police officer with a with a in the police radio squad car aiding and abetting this entire thing and intimidating account of mr rossi as he's looking at potential body bags and and  s that are there to to literally cut up his body parts epperly disposable so chainsaws a pretty intimidating thing this is an awful awful experience so even though some people say gee that's a lot of money you couldn't you couldn't pay me eight million dollars to go through what he went through and it would with the rest of his life as he continues to hide out of state gave up his chicago connections lives elsewhere because he lives in fear day to day that's not what we want our people that's not what we want our citizens to be experiencing here so i think these are are very serious allegations there are enough questions of facts here that have to be addressed by a jury and to grant summary judgment when there are so many questions of fact is just contrary to the rule of law which is why we come before this this court we're asking for your assistance in ensuring that we do get that day in court in front of a jury so those questions are facts can be addressed going back to the point that that i was asked about with the shame we don't have a right to be free from crime that i think we all understand that there is nothing we can do to protect ourselves from every sort of crime that there might be i would like to reserve a few minutes for  your honors mr rossi has already recovered on state law against the people who were responsible for his beating and kidnapping which were the garley defendants in this do back there is no basis for any of his remaining claims against the defendants the city defendants who are detective matthews and the city of chicago this morning i intend to focus my remarks on two of mr osses claims the denial of judicial access claimed against the text of matthews and the against the city and with respect to the remaining claims would rest on our brief unless the court has the civic question i just have this question did the district court ever provide any explanation for rejecting his objections to the bill of costs there was nothing and that the district court put in writing that's in the record no your honor now so we don't have any explanation we don't have any explanation but what we do know regarding costs is that the objections that mr rossi put forth were clearly frivolous under the law of the circuit each one of those projects and there's a case objections there's a case on point that directly rejected it and accordingly it would have been an abuse of the district courts discretion if the district  denied haas and most egregious is mr ross's claim that because he was indigent that he should not have had a cost because this court has squarely held in the rivera case that it is an abuse of the district court discretion to deny cost when the as here the the person that would have to take us doesn't put forward a single piece of documentary evidence to support the claim of indigents so because mr rossi didn't have any evidence that he wasn't back in the indigent that he submitted the district or would have abused his discretion to deny cost in that circumstance the other objections are equally weak for the reasons that we explained in our brief which i'm happy to address if you're if your honor would like me to one other point about that your honor the district court in addition to knowing what the cases hold about cost was aware that mr rafie had access to the settlement with the other defendants the eighty thousand dollars from from the garlic defendant and an undisclosed amount from due back so in light of that fact it also would have been abused its discretion by  not indigent within the meaning of the case turning to the denial of judicial access claiming there are two necessary requirements for a successful denial of access claim that are plaintiff's ability to pursue the underlying claim in other words the denial of access requires covering up the true facts you know a way that impacts the state law action or whatever denial of judicial access claim where the plaintiff knows just as much if not more about the facts of the case supporting the claim than the defendant officer and also has a state law remedy available so in this court's decisions in the stuff all of the thompson and the canon matter the plaintiff knew just as much as the defendant officer because the plaintiff and the officer were face to face participants in the incident and this court held there was no denial of judicial access because state law remedies were available and in fact as this court held that although there was a fact that the that the defendant officer knew that the plaintiffs did not because the plaintiffs learned those facts in time to pursue their state law nobody did anything about that would would could he have done so i'd still to this well your honor in that situation he could have hired a private investigator is one thing that he could have done he could have as he did pursue his state claims against the karla defendants and through discovery attempt to obtain the information that he needed he actually said it should not be forgotten succeeded on his state planes in this case nothing that disk detective matthews did impeded his ability to file suit on those claims and actually succeed on those claims and your honor there is simply no constitutional duty on the part of law enforcement officers to go to a crime scene and cephalic case this court held there was no denial of judicial access because the plaintiff had access to state law remedies and knew all the facts even though the plaintiff had alleged the police should have done a better job investigating so in other words are criminals out there that should be just charge you're someplace and that's what that they didn't do and i think we could have got a private investigator an attorney just what the civil case whatever crime was reported case from the fourth circuit for that proposition in that case there was a tavern fire there was supposedly arson and the plaintiff alleged that against the defendant officers they should have done a better job figuring out who was responsible and providing the plaintiff with information for the civil action but in addition for prosecuting those people that were responsible criminally but the fourth circuit in that decision held there is no such constitutional right on the part of anyone to have another person and be investigated or prosecuted or to have a crime scene secured and to have evidence turned over the nature of the denial of access constitutional right is simply that where the plane the police already know something and they keep that from the plaintiff who does not know that and and because of that the plaintiff doesn't have the opportunity to go to court based on that true set of facts that's what violates the constitution it's not an affirmative duty to go out and solve crimes it's you can't tamper with evidence when you know something that the plaintiff doesn't that was the bell decision where the knife was planted in the deceiving hands to make it look like a different situation then what was what were the true facts so in there they know the perpetrators released the names and some of them there's no duty to work and there is no duty on the part of the police to follow up for figure out who was responsible for those crimes and yes mr ross he knew he knew all those people because he worked with them he knew the true facts because he knew what happened to him he knew who was responsible and he had his own testimony and his own best evidence and he was able to pursue this state law remedy against those defendants based on those true facts that's all that shit the judicial access requires he was successfully able to do that  because and in those cases the court held there's no denial of judicial access where the plaintiff has the ability to go and pursue state law flames even though the clip the police in that case had evidence within their possession that they kept from the plaintiff that would have helped support the lawsuit the eleventh circuit did not it did not matter the eleventh circuit that there was evidence that might help bolster their claims that was hidden under the desk chair and one of the officers offices the eleventh circuit said no that's not what denial and judicial access it's about it's about if you know the facts and you can go to court to pursue your claims the police don't have the duty to turn over evidence now we don't have that even that situation in our case because there was no evidence in possession mr rocky's claim is even weaker because he's alleging not that there was evidence that that mr detective matthews kept from the plan but instead that he just didn't go out and evidence so moving on to the mo nel claim if i unless there are further questions regarding judicial access to mr ross he just does not have court not to inform rather to enforce mr ross these waiver in his opening brief he focused solely on the code of silence and he relied solely on the will brick a decision and the decisions in my and ambrose he did not did not mention anything about the policy regarding felons or any really any of the evidence he was talking about this morning supposedly the one percent discipline rate the lack of training all those things none of that was in his opening brief and we urge the court to enforce the waiver and not allow him to come up with those at oral argument regarding the zero record decision we the reason that judicial notice is inappropriate is because this court has held that it's not appropriate to take judicial notice of findings in a different lawsuit where the collateral of the the requirements of collateral estoppel are not met so that was the jump this court's decision in the general electric case if a court can take judicial notice of the facts simply because it was found to be true in a previous action then the doctrine of collateral estoppel would be the purpose and in this case mr ross he agrees that collateral estoppel is not appropriate with respect to a bretta and because collateral estoppel not appropriate therefore judicial notice is not appropriate either the old brick of plaintiff was able to get to a jury and convince a jury based on evidence she present that it's up to the plaintiff in each lawsuit to submit his own evidence to support his claim he can't simply point to the fact that another plaintiffs succeeded in a different lawsuit as evidence to get to a jury that's not appropriate for the jury to consider and for those same reason for that same reason rather mr rossi can't rely on what the judges and ambrose and myatt said because that's not evidence that could go to the jury either those are stay hits that were made decades ago and other cases that it's not evidence that he himself can can point to and finally with respect to mr roxy's argument that there was there would have been other evidence that he could have found if only modelled discovery had proceeded more to his liking he has never made that claim in this litigation and again we urge the court to enforce that waiver if that was a complaint he had then he should raise that in the district court and then he should have raised that here on appeal with in this in this case as well unless this court has any further questions regarding mono or the judicial access claim or any of the other claims we would respectfully ask this court to affirm the district court's judgment