five we can proceed oh by the way i will let you know when i need to know how much time you reserved for a bottle thank you judge represent the plaintiff account mr levy senator and the related adiz in this matter we are here today asking that you reverse the district courts grant a summary judgment to the city and remain and so that this case can be heard on its merits mr hubbard's claims have never been heard on their merits at the district court level this case was resolved on summary judgment based only on the city's version of the facts that this record opinion the district court was as you i'm sure well know quite distressed i'll say exasperated with mr hinter burgers statement the references didn't match up to what they were purporting to be it wasn't focused me there were a lot of things which is why she struck that now you still take cities facts in the light most because the district court ignored actual evidence that was needed to it on judgment now but i think she had seen i think she did get whatever the actual evidence was was too hard to find basically it means she an overly argumentative statement of fact or used to justify its striking of the statement of acts ever or to abused its discretion in doing so because all of the reasons that the district court client is bound by his lawyers and that the party is made to suffer in litigation consequences as a result of both good lawyer and bad wiring but here we have a unique scenario where the district court entered a rule t at least two maybe three different examples and she traces our website it isn't any of that in your view you know wrong as she make a mistake in the act we do not get to with the factual examples given by the district court the district court is correct when the district court says for example that a particular citation does not necessarily support as broad a fact as the sentence that preceded it in the briefing below however we do dispute the consequence of that based on the district court's order on her stand that yes that i understand that point that summary judgment briefing and i tried to see if i could trace different things out on points that were important and in both instances i ran into trouble and so my my aspiration is no more from doing that think that the dish for courts exasperate ssion consternation event is well placed with those responsible for the incorrect citation and for those responsible for the argumentative nature of the facts and what we have here is a special situation where the party has been sanctions as the judge entered a litigation sanction as the district court called it and a rule to show cause against mr berger's trial counsel but the result that we end up with is diametrically opposed where the party is made to suffer the litigation sanction for conduct that is clearly lawyers work whereas the lawyers were not made to suffer any type of sanction under rule eleven or otherwise for the exact same wrongdoing and that inconsistency is what wholesale can you pray on the merits of any claim if we do that and if so maybe a better way to ask the question is what's your best claim if we were to do that know i know contrary to your wishes through the litany of facts that are set out in the appellant statement of the case here showing a pattern of disparate treatment without that had are no disparate treatment over a period of years it would be very difficult if not impossible for m berger to prevail on any of the claims asserted that being you know that being said the strongest claim if you know a a reasonable in submitted by the defendant show that there clearly was a real estate development transaction happening here or series of transactions happening and that these types of economic analyses and modeling works changed but even that claim strong as as it may be compared to the others is substantially weaker if the plaintiffs facts are completely ignored here as they were on the district court and that that gets to a broader point which is mr hubbard's claims are in fact much broader than the city has suggested they are and that the district court has also suggested that they are mr numbers claims are not about a particular real estate developer being entitled to public money this is not mr hubbard or making a federal case out of being entitled to taxpayer dollars the case is much broader and is about calling a local government to account for its mistreatment and its despair here's my problem with this mean i tried to figure out what what i could to still friend from from this record that might be mr hitler burgers clane and one thing i thought was possible was an accusation of you know of pay to play you know that if you don't contribute to the mayor then you don't get the contracts we unfortunately have some experience of that in in chicago so i thought maybe that but that's not really spelled out at all there are tremendous number of things where mr interviewer didn't ever fulfil the conditions that the  there had been some focus on what exactly was the trade secret how was it conveyed how did the city use it then maybe but that i found so many gaps so i just couldn't quite sharpen it into a everyone knows there's red tape in local government especially in real estate business the issue is that mr hunter burger ought to be subject to the same red tape as everyone else and he was not here and the facts the facts that support that are the brown in coral project that's a similarly situated developer in the same area that was not subject to the litany of different requirements that mr hunter berger was the browning coyle project was also led requirements st at the very beginning it was adding lot six dollars to nine dollars to be an affordable housing component and then once that was done it was changing it and requiring leed certification and then once that was done there was another other requirements as expired so yes go ahead and stop for now thank you very much great thank you very much mr will find thank you may please the court and chief judge what my name is adam will later in litigation he did not understand what local rules fifty six thousand one hundred of him in the face summary judgment but misunderstandings don't lead to do overs and regardless of what hooper may claim that's what this appeal is really all about now case law from the circuit a substantial deference to just record to enforce their own local press this is doubly true when it substantially pare it down and also of course make the record references accurate i'll say i haven't seen any case law from the circuit chief judge wood that says that you know when i just record does not l and so i don't think that that gets the abuse of discretion standard there so with the abuse of discretion standard there has to be there has to be the record has contained no meant a pretty generous amount of time trying to make sense of it mr berger citation the evidence arcing through the argument versus what the actual facts were and really understand we threw up its hands and just within the attorney client relationship if the client is unhappy with something the attorney's done there are ordinary remedies there could either be legal malpractise or there could be other remedies that maybe the court didn't want to what it did and as as this court has said if the party fails to comply with local rule that party has to suffer the consequences regardless of how harsh might be the other point i'd like to address is concerning mr hibbard constitutional claims and various occasions this court has emphasized that it st of the it against themselves a cult of best framed and pursue their claims in the supreme court actually just injuries were caused by customer policy and he has sued an individual state actor that's on page eighty eight of his reply this is one of the most important wrinkles of his last illness because even if he proves any constitutional claim whether that's because protection due process or whatever in order to prevail on the no claims are still has to be enough competent habitants that it's a policy practice or custom actually cause those injuries that district court so that all of the facts that are laid out in the state of the case on appeal which were all drawn from the summary judgment materials can be adjudicated in heard by the  that gets to the nd point which is in this is addressed in the briefs at length and so i won't go through it in detail here but contrary to what mr well fund just said mr did in fact present actual evidence on which a reasonable juror could rely in finding in mr universe favor on each claim alleged in there for summary judgment was inappropriate and remain and for trial is the appropriate remedy and thank you very much and i'd also like to say that of all these i'm conferences that i have done this is the most streamlined and efficient and i can say that i was hardly thank you very much the court staff will appreciate your praise for that we are in their debt for sure so thanks to both counsel we will take this case under advisement and we will move on to the next one thank you