action which we were not the second category and this appeal has to do with t we cannot unring the bell in those words at those at that time in that situation the second part is there was a police report that was attempted to be offered into evidence what he was doing the words at the house and nothing to do with but our attitudes included the fact that that house was built by the city property for the defendant i was working for that house he lived there rent free it was done during the same time jurors were the inhumane treatment of animals which was not our business and they had nothing to show that because when they did the initial question even on the jurors none of them even really knew what he did or it was organizations were the people that brought up this city versus country in particular the baileys they had raised off and they lived and i'm a happy way mr bailey who was in the seventy's and is still farming full time with his wife from their family farm a detail off that was logged in from all of those three different locations when this last compere to tracy that was done in the twenty six states what it shows is on the days when they were fighting over there were some trace exactly the opposite is true it's true what killed the credibility of us before the jury was the personal attacks pearson as i call to cover him where we had all this good show leap status or him that silly size on the neighbor's in the end we somehow found ourselves or where they were didn't there was no foundation there couldn't be a court decisions you know mike just made it clear that police reports are hearsay and prejudicial to the right prevent these kind of surprises whether or not they should have been allowed to discuss the location map off this matter which seems to be a strange question to go all these guy regarding whether or not a complete statement or a complete reading of a particular section but not in this case that was a document and discursive by the fully supplying what it was that she was the nature of her was also raised that question off whether they should've been allowed to have a site as a fundamental matter the plan argument is really a kind of to see what it was like in their own residences what they wanted to do was take them to the sill in reality the question is not what conditions there are around still the question has what is a conditional level of conditions fact i think that the last time at the facilities that is exactly the type of comprehensive regulatory scheme that the illinois supreme court if vision route when it was thinking about it doesn't regulate one particular l o one aspect of these facilities and it's almost looking backwards up through the microscope reality is there is an overall scheme that attempts to balance  now are any of these tests in connection with the summary judgment are any of those tests ever required by any illinois that you hear federal statute and action with these facilities in terms of particular here monitoring yes on a it's over a certain well all mission believe that that gives you that particular you got overcome with your heard it we all know the standard review is in against the manifest way to the evidence six neighbors like i think was mentioned testified that this was not a problem why couldn't the jury just simply rely on that