hurry i don't have much argument i think virtually everything is covered in the briefs and i rely heavily on my rule twenty eight a statement in which i argument because i think it's bad not to have argument especially when there's a point i want to make that isn't raised briefs which is i didn't discuss in the briefs the wife's case as it was decided by the co of appeal and i think that the important point that now remains in this appeal is that under the weiss case there never was an initial review of the citation at all because it was an illegal review it doesn't count it's now it's void and therefore a fine had to be paid in order to actually get the initial hearing which was the second hearing sequen deprivation of a fairly small dollar amount right at which you would then get a refund at the end of it how does that demonstrate due process violation i think it demonstrates it because certainly this can be characterized as a parking ticket case where the fine was sixty or seventy dollars but if one looks at the plaintiff's appendix to the opening brief you will see that this is happened to a huge number of people and for the calendar year two zero zero four for example the amount of money that the city of los angeles collected as a result of this process that they used was one hundred fifty six million five hundred fifty seven dollars this was filed as a class action and so it's not a sixty eight dollar fine it's enough people paying sixty eight or seventy dollars fines to total hundred fifty six million dollars that fact there is an opportunity to have a hearing get to my back so i don't i don't see hell this increases the amount of money ultimate amount of money but it does keep money from the individual fresh about the temporary deprivation of the fine so you you got cite it and then the city says ok if you want to challenge it at some point you basically put down the amount of the fine and we'll hold it then the city refunds that money and i think you've got to show due process violation in that process so how does that show due process violation in the ninth circuit is a case i cited in the brief and i can't find the second indicates the time value of there's a provision that if you can't afford to pay a fee that the that the agency is supposed to set up a process so if you can afford to pay the money you don't have to pay the money is there such a process as we have any record therefore you don't have to put the money upfront before you get that hearing what is that process like the city does have a process where you can request the fee waiver there there's different standards for showing financial burden of posting the amount of the fine which in los angeles for parking yes it would be sixty five dollars or if there is there was some delay in pay when it would be processed exactly is there a form you fill out yes  the owner fills out a form and submits it submits it at the same time that the request for the initial review that we're talking or i'm sorry the request for the administrative hearing is paid that is there's no cost there's no cost at all for the initial review that we're talking about from from the complaint and then if if after the administrative hearing if the owners still does not prevail and so the fine at least becomes final within the city we also have a way that we can set up installment payments on the fine itself or community service others that you're sorry or community service in lieu of paying the fines at the end community service i love their option i'm not sure that we set up community service but i do know that we have the easy time payment plan for for almost with or without any initial review because the it was a small amount of money it was ok to take the money and have the hearing later without any process at the front it is that your argument no and i cited the two welfare state court of appeals decisions they described the the the constitutionality of requiring posting of this amount before the administrative hearing and they said it is some sort of process before you have to pay any money right according to the statute i gather there is but in fact a white house has held that los angeles is version was illegal under state law is that my right so far no that well that was not what the court of appeal held what the court of appeal held and if you read the opinion they say that mr weiss received all the fairness that he was entitled to under the initial review part of the vehicle code where the issue came up i forget now whether this is actually quoted in anything before you but an issue came up regarding the propriety of attorney's fees under the the state's private what's your own problem with the delegation to a third party yes that was really that and that was really the i'm sorry go ahead that was really the only issue substantive issue decided by the court was that the city's practice i was not consistent with the vehicle code so but what i wanted to say that the judge resign resign is question in affirming appeal found that there was a public interest for that feel ward is just the does this isn't that as to who actually had to make the initial review determination so i think you can if you read the weiss opinion it's through out there  that at least as to the vehicle code mr weiss got all the fairness he was entitled to but the court of appeal held that he was the wrong person making the decision condition for review or petitions has survived a few has not waited for this court's ruling he has filed a third lawsuit with the same parties concerning the same parking citations and in that complaint and i'm paraphrasing he's making the argument in that case that the wise decision is stari decisis on federal procedural due process and rico issues so i would say that the wise decision it's a decision based solely on state law it was narrowly focused on this question about who actually makes the determination does it have to be a city employee or can the city contract that out so long as even if the city has the right controls and the right monitoring that's all the vehicle code is phrase the city has the monitor that is be in control of every step of the process so that a decision even made at the initial review stage can fairly be said to be the cit is your fundamental position that the government can come to me and say we think you did something wrong and we want you to pay us the fine for doing this thing that we some why other than the person who gave you the take a look at it i guess well like i did phrase it that way i was trying to emphasize that if you look at those the two state court appellate opinions we  you're guilty so give us some money and then we'll give you a process after that any process and i understand that the process doesn't necessarily have to be a formal hearing and i think that the argument that an effective initial review is sufficient is probably right but like most of the other cases about property jeff brady creation in far the situation of the government has given you something like a job or a benefit or something and then stops giving it to you it seems to me to be somewhat different when they're i think that the cases we cited say that the initial review process because it doesn't require any money up front is sufficient reason that the but that's why i want to clarify that you're taking the position that this would be  it became a civil matter within city administrative process you would mail in your bail and you'd show up for a hearing date and whoever the prosecutor was would go through a whole stack of them that morning and would tell many of you to just go home the they didn't want to go ahead with it and and i see the initial review process is being analogous to that vetting process that that used to happen the real hearing is the administrative hearing that's where due process that's where you get your fair hearing before that there provision becomes final but there's no money required up front for the initial review i'm  whether it could have no process for a change and i know i am right i am my understanding is your answer is yes you think they could but anyway that isn't what happens well they don't the city does not take money before the initial i've seen disputed numbers but we've had cases where there was that is the if that is as as much as thirty percent of challenges are the citation is this missed at the initial review stage and then an even larger number resolved in the the owner prevails in the administrative hearings mr yadlin did and then i think there's even some still higher number where the owners  prevail if they go to a superior court appeal so i don't think although this is going outside of the four corners of the pleading i don't think the evidence would bear out that an initial review is just a you know just calling it in have the photograph to show that no by god that the car was not in the red was not by a marked street cleaning side something like like that so evidence is considered the the initial review is is not an know four points i'd like to make first upon sitting there and reflecting on this i believe that the matter of parking adjudication matter is criminal not civil and i base that on a case i remember that was authored by judge stevens on the supreme court that had to do with forfeiture and had to do with some slot machines in montana i believe but i just can't remember the name of that case and i'll submit it with a twenty eight j statement because it's easy enough to find on westlaw my second point is here there was no initial hearing at all because the hearing that reportedly was held whe people isn't it isn't directly relevant to the constitutional issues and i respectfully believe that it is i believe that it's relevant because if it was one becomes to two surely invalid to have  of the initial you're saying that the initial review for which no deposit of money was required is really not a review at all because it was a violation of state law right it doesn't exist that's that's what my argument is and i base that on the weiss case  counting the second it minister a d v d for which you needed to put down the money asked the review was the yes that's correct second third third i'm sorry  to this case the attorneys fees issue in that case was just irrelevant because what the court said was that the city didn't follow the state vehicle code statute that required that the initial review be conducted by the issuing agency as a group as opposed to the processing agency was to sato made a claim about something that's beyond the record and it was incorrect and i don't want it to sit here is correct yes there is a third case but it's not based on the two parking tickets that are involved in this case in the third case was filed by me based on a third ticket after the wife's decision came down so the legal principles the same but the factual predicate is different lest there are statistics and i can provide them if the court wishes in a rule twenty eight j statement that until a couple of years ago excuse me until a couple of years ago the initial review resulted in a fifty percent conviction rate as it were and a couple of years ago the conviction rate went up to seventy five percent because quotas were imposed on the conviction rate with respect to what xerox