all the allegations contained in the complaint were either not litigated in the pi proceedings at all or they were there was no allowance for a full litigation or they were addressed to the they were not essential for the for example one of the primary allegations in the complaint is that there was a permanent taking of the plants property there was no knowledge by the annual plainness that the city intended a permit taking until after all the prior proceedings had concluded completely it was only after the conclusion of the proceedings when the plaintiffs attempted to correct conditions on the property and apply for new inspections and attempt to regain possession of their property that they discovered the city was not going to allow that no matter what they did in any case what your statement is for taking i'm so i could  proceedings were only concerned with real property the conditions of the real property there was no issue no allegation no charge relating to personal property yet during the primary search of april twenty third the personal property luggage containers personal profit was searched so that clearly is a claim raised in the federal complaint that has nothing to do with the pri plants are entitled to proceed on the rest of the claims in the complaint were not there was no opportunity for full mitigation primarily because there were two prior proceedings the first was a limited board of appeal proceeding and the second was a city city court proceeding in the first the board of appeal proceeding there was no cross examination of witnesses allowed at all at the beginning of the proceeding it was announced that no other issues of law would be considered the board of appeals didn't have the power all they had the power to do was look at the notice a violation issued by the state inspectors and say was there conditions on the property that justified the notice or not that's all they could do they couldn't look at any due process violations any search and seizure violations none of that they could only look was a notice valid there were actually two notices the first was from the search of the fifteenth of april that notice was somehow ics extinguished or merged into the second notice a week later of april twenty third the board of appeals only was faced with that second the first interview was never even part of the proceedings so the violations of an illegal search because there was no warrant no consent no it didn't circumstances there was no basis for that search and it was never a form here that claim at all because the board of appeals only heard and was concerned with the second and similarly in a few months later when the city prosecuted one of these parties nina janet professor janet for all kinds of violations of the susan code this was just a proceeding similar to that to be a way of proceeding where there were complaints of property violation and the city court was concerned where there conditions in the second and on april twenty third to corroborate the charges of of property violations that was in the city court repeatedly ruled during the hearings that nothing could be introduced no cross examine examination that happened about anything except what property conditions were observed or existed on one day on me if the twenty third the day of the search and seizure and eviction of all these people that was it it was a very severely limited proceeding and we knew from the once we commenced we couldn't bring any of our claims in that proceeding we had to go through the proceeding wait for the judgment and found appeal and one of the things that is also agree just that shows how limited and the lack of opportunity for litigation  city court said the matter under vice we had no idea when they were issued their decision they only allowed ten days from the day to issue their decision to file you notice of appeal very small window i was the counsel of record i was the attorney representing the plaintiff i was living in california the city court clerk waited until the first day into the ten day period to mail me her decision the decision of the court let me ask a couple questions or did you file a motion to suppress in the city court proceeding not the board that the city court a motion to suppress what the results of the search understanding is that when the proceed when the hearing was finished then the judge to submit written motions so we submitted written motions at that time after the hearing was over zealous standing here today whether you filed a motion to suppress among those written motions i don't know if it was in captions exactly the way you're describing we filed about five motions after the hearing was over and included all the constitutional claims in those motions but the problem was during the hearing when we could have had a chance to provide a factual basis for these claims we were denied completely the opportunity to cross or to present direct evidence to establish the facts my next question is describe the nestor study to sun city court rules procedure allow for that i'm not certain i don't i don't believe so but i'm not certain in the event you did not correct you waited and pointed that out to th motions came after the hearings were over and during the hearings when we were little sort of yes or yes but the scope of the whole was an essential to decision and the whole scope of the city court proceeding did not require that the determination at all this to the court was limited to the allegations of civil in fashion where their property violations on one day in time this is the way they do it it's like a they argue in their motion to dismiss violations of state and federal law the city has drafted in force an ordinance which gives extraordinary discretionary powers to an individual without judicial review to take a citizen's home away without prior notice and without compensation he argues that this was not right yet at the time these options were filed he argued essentially a taking client second question that was addressed to mr wallace and i think such even though it is a civil infraction and not only did the trial court judge addressed that in her ruling but she said that she had jurisdiction to determine these issues and she did in fact determine the issues with regard to the judicial nature of the city court proceeding janick was represented by not only mr wallace that teddy mccormick they were allowed to cross examine witnesses you're allowed to present evidence in defense and they were allowed to present motions your honor asked  mr wallace did he in fact present motions and he said i don't remember he did in fact present motions on the very same issues that he raised in a several lawsuits presented a motion to dismiss violations of state and federal law he presented a motion to dismiss illegal search of april fifteenth two thousand and three these are in the in the cities experts of record under h i j and j and so under these procedures a city court clerk could wait until nine days after the decision is reached and then send it out by regular mail to counsel and the city or your client have any proof that his description of the circumstances is incorrect that is that the clerk waited five days to milit purchase is the property michael jernigan in the deed transferring the property to janick is recorded in the pima county recorder's office on march thirty one two thousand and three is that correct of the property can the bank that owns the mortgage on my home here in phoenix give consent to andrew thomas the joy to search my house i would say no but in this particular circumstance even if there's a