this court has previously determined that the debris at the landfill is waste that's been illegally dumped because the disposal permit was required and of tamed so that settled it's also been established that certain defendants  just people of the southern audience we're just expecting to get our dumping bridal teas and so would like to address more detail is that the people believe that the owner defendants have their own statutory responsibilities that they can't simply we decided when we affirmed this the partial summary judgment ruling i don't recall anyone arguing to us that this court should conclude that every party is liable asking is there a case they actually says that what you're saying that if the attorney general sends a letter to someone saying that you know it's our opinion that you're operating without a permit therefore air that if you choose to do nothing at your notice that your violations or your actions are violating the act the alright we'll i'm just i'm finally losing something here about let's see for example did the court subsequently determined that there wasn't a permit me or what they were doing was a violation of the i don't understand how you can say that if we tell you if we send you a letter that there's a duty as a man rule of law from that moment forward that you clean up your mess the english notice is still that they were  they did not take steps to relate the pollution does that someone have to determine the app like the words i mean i'm not sure how you can stand here and tell us that they had to explain this off when we sent them a a permit was needed until two thousand and eight but does it mean that the act wasn't being violated until two thousand and eight the map is being violated when they have been dumping was occurring and all the other violations were claims of the violations were occurring when is not something that the attorney general does it's something that doesn't the can use the contract to a group there statutory obligations the contract and the statute are two different things and they can't just put boilerplate language into the contract property to bring the site back into compliance that has any agreements that we didn't have the control we couldn't do anything i don't agree with that but that's hasn't been true since for years since two thousand and seven the operator the to day operations which is the focus that they want to put out its relations hamstring you anyway now they say going to talk about them in your brain which is actually quite true if you don't mention the stipulations you provided did not support the assertion that the world you see permit lincoln to operate illegally it seems clear from this description of the world we see did not know lincoln to operate illegally and then finally the two rulings from judge that was going to be putting waste on your property and you made a decision that it's something you could do and so then you enter into an agreement that you're going to get paid for this and and this is your position basically bit you can right away anything you want i mean the draft the right to not have to do anything in terms of what happens here properly simply because you went through an agreement with someone else who's going to do exactly what the want is not perfect no that's not my position so first and foremost let's go back to the question that was an answer is a case that supports the proposition that as soon as the agency issues a violation desist notices ignored drawing the preliminary injunction motion which ultimately resin called up for hearing by the state until three years after they filed ignored a demand for arbitration ignored can go in and check the books to make sure you were getting your royalties really had the right to go when you're in stand there and watch them do it if you didn't give them yourself the rights to come on the property and make sure that they were of the criminal statute was big but more to the point that was a circuit court decision that did not create any presidential value legal fact in any other case if they wanted to say  questionable premise and again they decided on those colmes they can't tie their own hands and say their hands are tied just to to conclude overall the suggesting there be something far fetched about supposed to do that and i don't have the obligation to do it also i think you are like we think people