letters that were attached to the eliot complaint from attorney alan lee to defendant are inadequate to provide notice of what the ordinance is trying to regulate in this  basic notice of the set vehicles that are alleged to be in violation of your boots now if you've got one vehicle on your property this isn't the kind of a park problem at all but in this case mr wilson has a home  and he has an auto wrecking shop both in the village of elliott and he has a part time business registered with the state of illinois where he does on wrecking in repairs had he works on these high performance cars he testified at the trial that there's like ten vehicles inside of his shop building as well as various parts racks the vehicles he keeps the parts the motors the fenders the starters different things that he would need to rebuild government all actors unity only for torts not for section one hundred eighty three claims i've cited the law in several places in my brief for that proposition therefore the dismissal of counts one applies to deprivation of your property property without due process claims second acts don't pursuant to a municipal policy or not brand of an unauthorized it can't be random an authorized and as i pointed out in my brief in another case well some wilson the parent just simply doesn't apply to the application of an ordinance and third the ordinance lacks any procedural safeguards that are required by due process so were were also challenging the ordinance itself and due process of due process craps and as i stated this applies only to etc legislative the nature such as proposing legislation legislative debate voting or and acting legislation the enforcement of the ordinance comes up with the police declined to apply legislative community for the actual enforcement of the organs because it's improper the dismissal on legislative of the union and this case was improper because nowhere was any legislative activity challenge in this the mayor received qualified immunity in order to overcome all of five immunity the plaintiff castro lied to improve number one violation of a constitutional or statutory right and but that the vehicles were towed without a warrant prior to seizing them off private property that comes straight from redwood versus letterman that warrant is required before seizing vehicles from private property pursu the notice what about this all you have to do is bring your vehicles into compliance this this case as it came to the court was it really just showed a lack of any kind of notice they act is constitutionally adequate to this homeowner about what the village wanted him to do what vehicles they're talking about bring it into compliance or get it out of the village and indeed turner and i believe that the court he has to take the case as it presented at the motion to dismiss stage that's my best reading of the law but you're right it's very different because some of these facts were brought out at the testimony in the trial and habitants and they resolve the issues but i think this doesn't come up a lot because investors like this are i don't know about or some kind of three o four a wording you don't have to say the words three or four a but you have to at least have to say that there's no reason not to appeal that some something from three or four there and there was not any and i carefully looked for they out in order to appeal  three equal protection was adequately pled based on well established constitutional laws and the problem here with qualified immunity  the plaintiff's exhibit a people's exhibit i didn't find any case law i'm but i certainly did look for it eleven times mr lee who was of course a state's attorney for over twenty years called it the people's exhibit he apologized said he wouldn't do it again he admitted that it was wrong one of the problems i really have with this is there were no ads at missions whatsoever from the judge to the jury the judge  with the acting like he was prosecuting a criminal case mr lee fabricated evidence in this is in regards to the placement of the stickers which hopefully there isn't too confusing but he said and going to the jury that all of the stickers were placed on the side windows of the car so this orange sticker that was on the back window of the truck obviously had to be the result of monkey business by mr wilson somehow scraping on his sticker jury that all the windows were on the side window so it's just naturally in this to show that the defendant mr wilson was lying about this sticker that was on the pickup truck the sticker on a big ford pickup truck said against you because you didn't deny your formative defenses here the plaintiff in a civil proceeding never asked for a fine now that's a pleading role the the case is structured within the pleadings and he didn't plead for he pled for other things the judge said well it's a matter of no surprise no surprise doesn't cut it when you don't plead it you know maybe mr lee is used to getting all of the consideration because he was a state's attorney but in  well if you disagree with if you disagree with me as far as the mistrial or the find then we're stuck with stay out any of the evidence that was presented if they have trial is of course available for pietschmann purposes at trial but i believe that we are definitely entitled to a trial on our constitutional violations and the illegal towing which wasn't really addressed at the ordinance case the ordinance case addressed did he violate the ordinance now whether towing was illegal or legal or even talked about that wasn't allowed to be talked about nothing about the unequal enforcement was allowed in that was emotional limited we couldn't even talk about it ok thank you you will think case has obviously been talked about and in the briefs argument extensive basis what we have here is a unique circumstance we have a case where the mayor filed a complaint with the village filed a complaint seeking to enforce the ordinance in that complaint village alleges in that complaint that he did in fact tell two vehicles that it believed to be that the mayor specifically talks about that you do have property here you do have vehicles i'm your property that are in violation of the ordinance agreement it doesn't specify exactly which vehicles were in violation hearing first of all i'm tissues i said isn't it correct that basically they did him a letter saying you can appear in tell us how you're going to fix this it assume that he was in violation there was no process create deprivation where into compliance but in the january that's that is the language that is stated and i understand what you're saying but the reality is mr wilson have the opportunity to go talk to the board about this and chose not to then what we have is several months later the situation has changed and we have multiple vehicles that are tapped and as a result of that process there was a nother letter that was sent by march tent not seven days he was provided almost a month he was provided to labor night two thousand and ten to rectify the situation and it was not in two vehicles which it is important in this case and distinguishes  but goes directly to wipe off i'd immediately would apply under these circumstances so that there were fewer vehicles there were two in the complaint itself and i was trying to make stay with the allegations in the complaint simply because the we're talking about two sixty nine motion but yes in the counterclaim there is allegation that the red it's the she was actually loaded that that later became an issue of public and post trial motions what is a vehicle under the statute or the ordinance excuse me and what and why their trailer in the ready to be she unequivocally that is agreed to has been tagged with on top of one of the trailers rational reasonable people can i now understand that if they don't take that vehicle off the trailer that is going to be true totoo how could you not there's not a way to do that without damaging the person's property so i don't think it would be unreasonable under the circumstances for the defenses that have been raised the briefs for that  my reading this is for instance there's been no appeal and the jury findings are the verdict in this are we kind of time trial was evidence that was relevant to the issues in the complaint that have survived the motion to dismiss while there may have been evidence presented some issues or certainly wasn't evidence presented on a lot of other issues that pertain to this missed counts so while there might be some evidence out there germane to some of these dismissed counts  instance qualified immunity i believe the face of the proceedings are issued in this case the argument can be successfully made that the mayor was intitle words that when you have multiple authors and one letter actually giving you the entirety of the ordinance at issue a second letter if i seen you several two roughly two months later two and a half months later that your vehicles have now been intact and that you have seven days to specifically as the fourth amendment claim the fourth yes the fourth amendment claim again as to qualified immunity what we're talking about is we have to think about a public official did they ask objective leave reasonable well in removing certain vehicles the mayor made the decision that he believed it was on public property there is no constitutional right what the after the objective reasonable tatts and so it which is a question of law for the court to determine and so from the standpoint well the first question has to be asked is there constitutional violation well there can be a constitutional violation if under the circumstances that public actor believed that it was public idea that it was they were told because they are public property there after they had the village then actually filed suit with the court to try to enforce its ordinance which is i don't know more of a way by the thread with matter that the bradley matter is factually on its face limited in it's limited to this set of circumstances this case has its own very distinct unique set of circumstances and that at the end of the day you are poor vehicles towed from mr wilson's property his pickup truck epic a truck was parked park right up in his driveway on his private they claim those are public property he claims that was on private right next to the building within twelve inches of this shop in downtown elliot and he thought that would alert them that he was in compliance with the ordinance because he put it up on the trailer at the so there's two vehicles there that the mitsubishi in the car hauler they didn't take the mitsubishi off the car holley they just told the whole thing away and then the small utility trailer that's at issue because it's an illegal towing it was a it's a container for recycling and one as part of our action plan which got dumped anyways or for that issue now the effect that the argument that the red case is limited to is facts there were different facts in that case but underlying that successfully argued that was crucial that is exactly what the distinction is crucial there would be the distinction between public property and private property and these were both his private property where he didn't live twenty four seven on either one of them but he did it the home the home the evidence which oh it's residence where he was rebuilding it after a fire and came there when he could from working and the shop was private property i have a case in there that says property so that would be a factual issue and it can't be decided on a motion to dismiss it's got to go to trial the judge didn't this got us in and that's one of the big problems here is that the judge didn't really discuss the issue  made the decision is mere to or at the time you know you can't look at what his state of mind this because any official put it any time say well my state of mind was that this was totally legal you have to go on the