research but you're not saying then that there's a due process violation because you can't get a jury you're not saying that there's no good that there's a due process problem because the judge should not allow you to make an offer of proof you're not saying get there's a due process violation because the ordinance itself says if you even respond you know by inquiring about well the point was is that having not raised before them you didn't give them an opportunity to say you know you're right i'm going to recuse myself from this case because i've been told by my superior that if i don't find in favor of the city and that and the cases that i hear i'm not going administrative hearing officer found a finally that's been the question i have for you is when did the when did the hearing officer say this is when the violation occurred did he say had happened when she made the offer or when he said  what did it happen when he said do you work here all the time or did it happen when i'll be back later i would assume since i have the state's attorney i'm not the city and i can't tell you but i was sure it has to be when he's he infer negativity based on the strength of your case but i've never seen a case that says you can infer the absence of defendant's witnesses to prove that the defendant violated the  ocus and i are in the same baseball fantasy complete along with i don't know how many other people ok and you're not seeking any action based on that i know we're actually adversaries filing a thirty minute complaint then you used the food chart is that correct is that your basic as ition that we really there's not enough in this record for us to make a determination as to whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the third amended complaint because we don't know why it did but if you charge him and assume that there's a transcript of the proceedings that would explain it and your position isn't that the judge during the course of his decision denying leave to file the third amended complete that he in fact explained his his ruling are you you're not taking that position are you our position is that there is no transcript language that there is no trans your argument when because that would just still mean that the standard of review for determining whether or not this complaint states a cause of action was the trial judge's abuse of discretion and really reviewing his decision rather than whether the complaint reveal the plaintiff nonetheless feel the state the claim in this case the law is clear here that where you make a claim of bias you have to have something more than your mere allegations to overcome a presumption of partiality by the decision maker and in this case thin line between notice pleading in fact pleading you don't think that paragraph twelve third amended complaint is sufficiently based rooted in fact to survive a finding that it doesn't stay the course of action i don't think  e it's conclusive thirteen and fourteen it's clearly conclusory but i'm not so sure about well are you saying that basically he needs someone who needs a whistleblower repeat somebody to come forward and say this is really what we do back here without the benefit of having an opportunity to interview people you know he can certainly allege and that's what he's done a connection between the rulings and there wouldn't to take both questions i says that that he could have asked his officer during the hearing indeed that could have gone another way to he could have asked in the officer could said well as a matter of fact just twice last month i found where i've never been found in favor of exactly and in fact i'm pretty sure that no matter how i rule today they're going to call me again to come back and do this and if he had asked any questions whatsoever we'd be in a completely different position here today because there would be something on the record to indicate in some way his hearing was impartial you think there are other ways to do even absent the confession he he he could have at least raised the issue as early as is and straight if you're right and you know his argument that administrators are employed by the city is a matter of public record so he knew this was the system from day one and he waited until thirteen months after his hearing to read maybe he didn't find out about the letter we don't know that we don't know there but what we do know is he could have found out solicitation it depends on what was said before that i thought given exactly what was said here given exactly what was said here he says that he says i get paid on friday i'll be back on friday is that a prior to his say i'll be back that's what you're saying that we don't have to consider that off so tell me exactly when did he violate your rights excluding that statement about i'll be back he finally did the ordinance a number you know what are you doing out here and yes it was this woman he said you know don't pay any attention to her so that conversation right there is a violation of the no i meant the the the very next statements then work what acts would be offered and how much they'd be offered for i got shot or whatever other possible interpretation you can get don't play but you're saying that the or the violation occurred at that point right just this is a case where he said oh excuse me i didn't hear you and that was the and i'm sure it's not as easy as that would make it clear that but you know violation of or if we could stay back as a matter of law does that kill does that does that is that fatal to the cit sort of put him under that wouldn't he does or does he have to have a conversation with a with a prostitute he doesn't have to really solicit a prostitute as the criminal charge alleged he doesn't have to do that well certainly if one to do a story and yes the rest of charging be guilty of the sort you know i i don't think we need to go that far in this case because those aren't the facts here and in fact the stat