by the supreme court it was constant says it but i'd like to start with the claims but argument because if you agree on that issue that's going to the case and there is absolutely no reason why the trespas your honor and what we're doing is complementing the brain case we're a park case the hudson case cases the primary supreme court cases that deal with claims flood with those cases a lot of this happens all the time but under under the test that sub just looking at the legal court as side claims what if you have to look at where the core operative baksh already issues in the case and the supreme court in much he relies on the she relies on the research and i'm going to get into that in a minute but those are the same core opera facts in fact they filed a motion for summary judgment in that case alleging that there was pressure and i can tell you that we would yes very broad and i just don't know how you can say that these top core operative facts were issued in that case particularly when you look at the way the trial judge decided to do them so you know with that  course decided as a matter of law while because they're reviewing it they don't they're not getting any difference whatsoever to the trial and that's entirely appropriate not the due process analysis most of it they don't respond to other than to cite to a case it was decided long before hoover and cite to a supreme court case from long before this approved supreme playful say well the supreme court says love best just a guy and so forth but the case is if you look at the history of that that ratio is important and the reason it's important that these cases guide us is because there's about one hundred to one ratio and that ratio itself is based on factors that weren't even an issue in the case i'll get to that moment with the with the represent reprehensible you know the limitations and for trespass us five years last council comes back and says well that's what we're past that's a period issue the fifty four thousand dollars was calculated based on that five year period ok well let's that and i understand judge for want to impose punishment but he did the wrong way the period issue is the five year period at best befor the lawsuit was filed and he did it in such a way that firstly everything he's talking about are things that happen in these other lawsuits so i never heard of a case where persons be punished for for seventeen year by year or judge even says well even today they have to live with pensioners as their days are living to doorstop so what the judge is saying is i'm going to punish you because after this lawsuit was completed and you lost you continue to live there there's absolutely no evidence that anything happened during that five year period are removed immediately after the supreme court basically say that when people are on her he knew that they own he knew that he had no basis whatsoever from this point well that's just a retroactive analysis of these decisions settled what the judge is doing here we can well on the reprehensible of what i read that decision i can't find any facts within the five year period not a single one i just talked about videotaping a picture take a look at those pictures and i know the judge relies on that the pictures are of that one right away are sitting there it i didn't see where you address that in his reply brief maybe he didn't quite well there were several motions to dismiss or to most dismissed file but that's true the original counsel mr whitty filed a motion to dismiss based on that i can't get his mind and say why he did it it may have been it may have been let me see i'm out of time and i just answered serves the please it may have been that he was thinking along the lines of of what judge force them said later on on the second motion to dismiss that under the pacemaker case if you have a clerk or judge in action or whatever look you can go back in the same case and you can see damages in that same case and would be just like if issue of whether there is a constitutional violation they have any question of law is repeated you know so that there is no notice that we are seeking the kind of sought were by fifty five thousand dollars with a request that they continue to be considered up to the point in time when the defendant finally moves this car  event there was finding a judge or decision that would seem to suggest that he was making an award hence a tory damages for emotional distress but it seems that he not award any damages for emotional distress is that right that is correct and if you read it very hard i believe the problem here i don't agree with them but i believe the problem here is day we this and i believe that's the rule three sixty six which mr hardy also cited indicated this court knew things if it sees fit beyond what is  lose nothing in that case about the car in the driveway the second case was based upon the car was parked in the driveway year or two later and things they did  car in the driveway and they even took the position in the field to the it wasn't just parking the car one day they maintain every day for well over the seven years and council let me just interrupt you for a moment i'm looking up the benefits memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment and have page three of that motion but that the memorandum they twelve and a half years when we filed the complaint we made it clear that we're seeing in damages for this new tour going back five years now i want to go into if heard reference to dates talking about multipliers but these cases they actually say this in the us supreme court declined to establish some bright line rule where there is a certain  multiplier one of the cases in which they're considering there is the end of the case damage to a car before its sole the first time they repaint it and it cost six hundred position that this is a parking space in the parking lot so it should be evaluated as thirty dollars a month the evidence presented show the deprivation of their right to the use of their property plus evidence showing the emotional distress and the mental anguish going on through the various things they did  injury case or if i know about the rule out there a rule of thumb of damage should be three times medical specials but i don't think that's something appropriate for a jury and i've actually done i have no other comment from the us your other question i don't see any thank you very much for your argument is  farm case the cooper case then i go second paragraph illinois on this we're talking about two different stand last council skips over the first one of the measure and jumps right to the illinois law so issue when it's consulate because they weren't issue he says that the exception on the continuing tor dr and i agree that that is one of the exceptions but that doesn't mean that in this case if this if this had been brought a lawsuit he