court did not accept all the while pleaded facts and it relied on facts that are outside the pleading the opposition argues that the district court can rely on these facts not side the pleading by taking judicial notice of them my contention is that these outside facts do not fall within the rule of evidence two zero one because the outside facts are the following that the  committed fraud on the court by not being real tenants and that by using obstructionist tactics however in the years of litigation in the state court and in the district court the bank never filed the counterclaim of all the motion for sanctions to these facts were never adjudicated in other words the facts that the district court relied upon and that the pools of counsel is claims are did you should notice what fair took the ones that and the fact that in the state court there were a lot of obstructionist tactics used which is really which is basically legal maneuvering is what the lower court said but soem other people put the material on the curb so i don't understand what the basis of the claim against the bank is the basis of the claim the biggest bank deals just with one and that's not problematic since the bank had an eviction order exactly organ argument seems to be that there was some to liberate destruction of the property how is the bank responsible for that because you  the deputy sheriff and previously handed a notice of procedure for exaction within that procedure your honor i cited in my brief number four and five the bank is to use reasonable care and if there is inclement weather or rain they are to cover the property they did neither they didn't use reasonable care by using the the folks not professional movers the folks who cut the grass to move the the property outside the house i'm i'm just lost it's a pretty basic rule of law that one group is not responsible for the acts of an independent contractor if you hire an independent contractor to do something the independent contractor is responsible for its own acts but you aren't your allegation is essentially that pm she bank hired an independent contractor and the independent contractor made errors or worse that manager that i mentioned his name the hard feelings he had he insisted on the on the and again i wonder whether or not those individuals who cut the grass are  to move the property caress and so they i don't know whether or not they did it on the basis that there was a company that directed them or that the bank simply said come on over and do this for us individuals who moving it in against the sheriff and against their own person the the bank manager's bad feelings from this in the past caused him to intentionally put a very expensive property outside on the lawn and damaged great deal not just the furniture personal photo albums clothes it was horrific and we've got pictures of it and you're tender you look at pictures of and your clients are skinner right there watching all of this right in even step in to maybe pick up a good album or is always very valuable stuff just watched your on of the deputy sheriff threaten to arrest both my client and myself if we didn't get out of the house because i'm in the house on time with the put the yard right well while it was raining we it's a large large house a large furnitures it was at the end of the month we made emergency calls for movers to come we couldn't find any and so we there were efforts to get to mitigate the damages yes and that'll come out at the trial what we did to mitigate damages and so  going to be put into possession of the property by the county sheriff and they knew it was going to be a contentious situation and they wanted to do to follow all the details county sheriff's guidelines and they want to do everything right and by the book so as the complaint the pleadings you know that appellant's admit they they sent a moving crew as the deep age county sheriff requires they had their property manager sarah hahn meet them at the property they brought tarps  and covered everything with tarps and they did it all under the supervision of the page county sheriff's deputy that's that's admitted by the other side i don't contest any of the you know that we followed any of the guidelines put out by the yes because you raise the issue we did not go out because we just thought that the whole we felt that that would be more appropriate once there were actual facts on the record on our side but we felt that their complaint o move the furniture you know who would serve hot dead oh and she even before when we knew there was a lockout scheduled for this property because of you know the the prior litigation in the circumstances can see wanted to be very careful and so we went over the sheriff's post addiction procedures with sara hahn who was going to be who hired the movers and we told her you need to follow these to the letter and that's that's what it came down to if you know if the depends county sheriff has a policy that the plaintiff is required to remove the personal property and put it outside that's that's you know publicly available on our website not every county in illinois does pain the page they do and we wanted to follow the procedure one hundred percent by the book that was what we wanted to do and that was what we you know what sarhan was instructed to do and what i believe she instructed you know the actual movers to do although again i wasn't present at the lockout but i did speak to her prior to it so there again there's no law showing the trespass to chattels or conversion applies  yes it does it well it means that actual day that the sheriffs physically go out and infect people from a property that's what a lockout is it's again it's true somebody isn't locked out well they do get locked out after they had the sheriff goes and they remove the human occupants from the property depending on the county they may remove the personal property or they may have the plan for move it or not  remove personals and doesn't require the plant to do so but he pays they do you know and so as part of that's part of the lack of procedure too and then after all that is done the locks are changed hands lockout  court is applying interpreting illinois state law and so has the responsibility to try to rule as it believes the illinois supreme court rule and the appellants are asking this court to create a standard of negligence to be responsible for whatever they did to protect or move something i mean you're right the ship is sale at this point so again it we're just asking court to call the existing law in illinois and not invent a new standard that illinois supreme court has not seen fit and the legislature has seen fit to create and if the supreme court just want to address your point the individuals who cut the grass did not speak english your honor and based on their appearance it doesn't seem that they have sufficient assets so even if we do good sue them it would