they were right in the crowd court they first appeared in judges place orders eight months after the trial and i think we hear proprium for them to be considered for the first time when i evidence deposition of dr and mrs tate they had a photograph showing their property they drew a line showing where they believe the property line was the same photograph was identif he'd find interest in the property told her it wasn't true she popped to a chester before the hearing and said i know i didn't do this stuff but we're going to pursue this claim anyway because my clients want him off the case convey trackday with the six on either west so that's as far as the court when so there was no finding recording specifically what maddy starkey's intent was that's as far as the court last so that is a mis maybe they were standing and that public policy for the court from reforming all well intended to gloss over the fact that they failed to meet their burden of proving any legal economists of all interest to track today whatsoever it was not conveyed it was not in their chain of title the only thing they had was to try to go back to the well and argue that because of history and  page testimony to beat to begun indefinite and or simpler to remember what the standard of proof is on an adverse possession claim it is clear and convincing evidence and the case that i  cited the general honore industries case makes clear that an interruption of adverse possession of even one day is enough to break the chain and if you think about it first of all the fact that the law does not favor and again best answer i give you is it would depend if they if they hear something if they say for example a sort of vehicle in track there or if they put some other personal property on track  they did something to a search their claim over trackday then yes that probably would not be a sufficient break in the chain but that's not the case here in addition of course we also look at the extent to which they used to cry when all this other other out facts the court may have looked at that as well but i think it is fair to say they looked at this period of up a month to month and a half and a just the residence but the fact that so for these reasons and given what the president states under general iron industries and the other cases that we cited i believe that the plaintiff failed to meet the defendant and counsel myself have demonstrated that the amended motion to disqualify counsel once it was narrowed to rule one point one one and the rule of ten scott was grounded in fact and  was based upon a good faith either warning system or a good faith argument for the extension of that law bear in mind that at the time of the amended motion defendant had on hand a certified small enough that he still maintained his own business and represented private bank clients cases for we have the attorney for township small enough that he maintained his own business and represented private bank clim assessor being involved in the case same township assessment of mr grosser had represented on a number of occasions our with respect to tax matters that were an issue in the case in the initial part of the case  there was also the the fact that you've been copied on memory and regarding that issue early on in the case the fact that  a statement made to twist the means to chester it was it was double hearsay it was not triple hearsay but mr twist also made the same statement and that was it in its evidence regarding to change the taxing status of track today so that it on my client the defendant in this case was no longer allowed to continue this practice of paying taxes out that the supreme court's rule in lookin scott was not limited to those facts language and lipinski made it very clear that the illinois supreme court took the view that in a tray should not get into position which might subject him to conflicting duties it was not limited to that narrow set of facts in the sense that they the language of that ruling makes it clear that an attorney who's representing a public entity and in municipality in that case a township in this case sure that essentially even an appearance of impropriety because of his duty to all parties within the jurisdiction that he is representing that's the argument for the good faith extension of the law and we can find that in the language and look and stuff itself were it would sense a public office undivided duty to the public and he serves and is not permitted to place himself in a position which will subject him to conflicting duties or supposing to the temptation of acting in any manner other than the best interests of the public that i've described as a prophylactic role which which i believe that it is is part of the role in the pentagon so my argument is not that we have to demonstrate the same type of was that fundamental basis and we didn't have any a factual basis to find that potential conflict existed because it was admitted it was never denied that mr grocer was the attorney for the t for many many years they did the township itself even used the term employed because it had been such an ongoing relationship and he put and he was in a position where he might be subjected to these some things that were raised in the course of argument this citation of point five nine hours of research that's already been refuted it was pointed out to the court it's part of the record that was one item in my billing statement there was another item where i was preparing the motion were turvy reply to that and memorandum on the motion that it took seven hours that was included in the research i don't know why they keep bringing up this point five nine hours you mentioned the record indicates that i did are surprised by some of the testimony of the witnesses it is precisely because i believe in this and i i do not have the record cited this time but i should point out to the court that it was not establish that that case had actually sold the palm before they left the hall it was sold to the turner but i don't believe anyone on the record was it established that that sale took place before they laughed and i usually that the court was the sort that out but i was mistaken on that i don't believe there's anything was never guess it is true that there were cases that were cited that said that it would be appropriate however the libin face that we cite i pick forty eight or four principle brief in the sanctions case makes it very clear that what i would suggest to the court is that in the live in case the court looks more carefully at the purposes and the policies underlying roll one thirty seven and it was on that basis that they came to that conclusion  also with respect to the argument raised it during opposing counsel's initial presentation it seemed that of one of them on the sanctions was arguing a tranny much too because false in what she did not do she is not here before the court she did not appeal this decision and so i'm not sure why that's in any way relevant what is relevant is the fact that the defendant in this case relied on further was surprised by what she did at the time that relied on me and i did narrow the issue primarily to that look and see case and destroys the other grounds and accordingly