issues before this court today are the considerations as justice due process as hybrid policy and checks and balances now more than average it is incumbent upon the officers of the cook county department of corrections a property interest in their employment that requires that the entitled to due process prior to the deprivation that property  sort of the difference without a distinction so to speak however that you didn't contemplate a situation where there wasn't even the minimum number of individuals on the panel required by statute to function exist as a body of law excuse me of an agency administrative body that was empowered to act under its enabling act now the read as decision  case and the timing and the way that that played out in this particular case the key size clear that it's not an issue that can be waived and i think even the taylor decision specifically intersection these sorts of issues can be raised at any time in a class of drug proceeding they could give you the specific say teaching there but it also refers back to the deals and i believe the other bodies a case rather that relies upon in stating that it's not simply for failing to raise it at the met board level or at the circuit court level that is not and impediment that i disposes of the case entire on one of the arguments that the sheriff raised in their brief and they seem to imply that that was some sort of a strategic maneuver and that they called question my integrity  timing this is also this just the record in this case was filed right around the time that there was a transition from hard copy filing to e file doing them so that if this is the timing and simply university as far as the video goes but they do want to talk about the video for a brief moment because i'm in a briefing we do argue that the upwards decision was against the manifest read of the evidence and clearly erroneous and as it relates to their findings there is great absolutely excessive in this case and i would suggest to you that the way that an individual responds in the use of force case there are a number of factors that go into the response and the fact that officer crews had been previously attacks because he was not in aggressive enough in a situation with the detainee he was on higher alert he had just come off from a leave where he had been on p t s d as a result of the attack against this person  resist his control to pay him back and you can even see on the video which is one of the reasons why i want the video to be before the court i want to see mr arnaout this jacket break his indicating he is visually be going in a particular direction and he's not and he's not responding to orders to go where he was supposed to have gone on and this is interesting area where they're basically individuals being booked because they're new into the because of the nature of receiving so as far as detainee hood attempting to escape on i could refer to the testimony to get some more specificity on how crews just arrived that i do recall that there was the issue where the detainee was mingling about and basically he wasn't supposed to be mingling about before he approached the detainee to try to give him direction and where to go and then there's also the crowd where the detainee is trying to on basically overcome the efforts of the market as well as it relates to the allegation of false for preying on i don't think that that is somewhat unusual really have a video showing exactly what happened and plaintiff did not mention even here the fact that the detaining was in a cold officer now trying to escape at the time that officer crudes sprayed the scene spread her pepper spray directly in his eyes and then there really knew about that information s better officers using excessive force or subject to terminations ever employing that as the only place this is that is not the only choice bad there's no question that officers  they're supposed to give independent testimony based on a right they felt and experienced and saw not they stand white a video tells them happened so i think it would be unusual procedural the change transparent the timing for terms of a office that an appointment does not have to be exactly six years and that the time for a member to leave their office is when his or her success for a successor is appointed  somebody during the proceedings in november seventh of seventy didn't feel that it was going to be retroactive again and that you see this single can meant in a bunch of pages the single coming to the legislature does for any individual to being in bread any use of force this is not an ordinary circumstance it is not something that everybody deals with on a daily basis it is a highly unusual in the natural occurrence to be in some sort of use of force with a detainee and particularly in the question employment now the reason why that's important is because there are various things like adrenalin that factors into your memory and completing reports that's why prayer completing reports that may affect your memory may not work had everything that occurred and as far as the effect on that that kind of goes into the mitigating circumstances as it relates to  a machine fair process that has not occurred today there was no meaningful process i provided to him and to make the fine point on a due process is something that is required prior to the deprivation of a remains that the should have to comply with seven zero zero two in comprising the bread that was supposed to grant him that meaning for sharing there wasn't a body in the facts that could give him the process to which she was your prior to the of the use of force in clearing just because he had an alternative mode of action that he could've taken that would've been in compliance with the use of force for that does not mean that the action that he did take reza violation of the sheriff nothing that can rise or set through the sheriff's expectations for the merits mere appearance expectations about the seaspray deployments and my response to counsel would be that any questions that are ra are not only raised and mysterious of the decision by the lack of analysis but on the increased as a result it's of that decision and the would essentially mean that justice in the really his procedural due process insensitive due process was delayed rather than six years after the incident and even when she was able to