[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Franklin L. Ferguson Jr.

[00:00:06] Speaker 00:
on behalf of the appellant, Satish Ramachandran.

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
Truth has to matter.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Facts have to matter.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
When you have a municipal authority, it is not a license to simply do what you want to do or be wrong and strong.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
The record in this case has over 7,000 pages, most of which are based on Mr. Ramachandran's exercise of the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of his grievances.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
Retaliation is not a primary right.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
That word like crime is simply too vague to be able to be used as a harm under the Gonzalez v. California Department of Corrections standard, 739 F.

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
3rd, 1226.

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
There's no case in California that has ever allowed a military prosecution action to preclude a First Amendment retaliation claim, never.

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
And there's a reason for that.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
Under Gonzalez, you have to have the same actions, same group of officials, same time, same harm.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
Those factors are not here.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
Only if you were to treat retaliation as a primary right could you say that.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
But it can't be.

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
The Fourth Amendment is the basis of the malicious prosecution claim.

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
That is a shield.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
It is against the citizens' ability to avoid being criminally prosecuted.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
Very important shield.

[00:01:40] Speaker 00:
But the First Amendment is a sword.

[00:01:42] Speaker 00:
It is a sword.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
It is the ability for me to complain about the powerful government officials, what they're doing to me.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
Without those two separate amendments, we'd have a very, very different world.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Mr. Ramachandran has prosecuted his rights

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
very specifically.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
Also, there's no privity between the Jacobs, a private party, and the government, the city of Los Altos.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
Specifically, in the first amendment resizing claim, which is an underlying case in this case, the Jacobs could not even be a defendant.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
They have no privity with the

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
the party of the city because they can't be held liable for a first member retaliation claim.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
I want to go through some of the important parts I want to leave the court with today.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
First, this case depends upon the city not

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
any record you see before you in the record, denying any of the activities which Mr. Ramachandran has brought forward as being evidence of falsity, of exchange of fraud.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
The city represented that the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction over LAMC, Los Altos Municipal Code proceedings.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
It did not.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
It represented that there were, in fact, citation appeals in the file.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
They were not.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
represented that the July 3rd, 2018 record is petition conduct.

[00:03:28] Speaker 00:
It is not.

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
The denial of the April 7th, 2020 motion to amend was based upon a mistake of fact.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
This court believed that the discovery had been obtained in January of 2019.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
when it had been obtained in January 2020.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
That's a mistake of fact, and it is a definition of abuse of discretion in that regard.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
April 20, 2020, most of the men first made a complaint.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
The court declared that the facts that were to be brought, including the RICO charges, were, even though from the same action, the same behavior, were distinct, yet

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
four years later, the same basis of factual allegations in a malprosecution action was deemed to be similar enough to preclude the first amendment.

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
Counsel, I understand that there were some different actors and different conduct perhaps in the different suits, but isn't the purpose of claim preclude collusion, Clara O'Stoppel,

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
to put all claims that were or should have been brought together based upon similar conduct.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
This case has dragged on for years because it's been tried in a piecemeal fashion.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
Why shouldn't courts say, okay, here's your chance, put all the claims together, time's up.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
It's time to try to get to the bottom of this without having to go through this protracted period of many complaints, adding parties, dropping new claims, that sort of thing.

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
What's the abuse there?

[00:05:05] Speaker 00:
Two things.

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
The mild prosecution claim did not ripen until many years after the first amended retaliation claim was brought.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
It couldn't have been brought at that time.

[00:05:17] Speaker 00:
It was impossible.

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
And number two, the various activity of the city in terms of engaging in fraud has caused the accident to drag on and drag on and drag on.

[00:05:29] Speaker 00:
You also had, if you can recall, your honor, the request for a stay, right?

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
That's at 21 months from the city.

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
was based upon the city's allegation that the Office of Administrative Hearings, the OAH matter, was pertinent.

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
At the end, when the say was lifted, the court said that the OAH matter was not relevant to the First Amendment retaliation claims, and also that it was simply not pertinent.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
The fact remains, Your Honor, though, that there is no case that has ever allowed

[00:06:07] Speaker 00:
a malprosecution cause of action to preclude a First Amendment utilizing claim.

[00:06:12] Speaker 00:
And so they're very different claims.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
Again, under Gonzalez, you have to have the same parties.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
They don't.

[00:06:19] Speaker 00:
At no point in time can the Jacobs be ever deemed in its imprivity with the city, because the Jacobs are not a government entity.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
They can't share that.

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
I think also, and I forgot to say this, I'm going to reserve five minutes of my time for rebuttal.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
Manage your own time.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
I want to move to the issue of the sermon judgment matter, which is review de novo.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
From July of 2017 to November of 2021, the city Stonewall discovered relative to equal protection.

[00:06:59] Speaker 00:
After the motion for sermon judgment was granted on certain issues,

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
The city attorney, Houston, said that they have a property-specific process.

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
It's direct evidence of discrimination.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
And that under the Mali 878F2nd 313 and Haid 812F2nd 42 is grounds for a new trial.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
As to the motion to amend on February 11, 2020, the defendants point to the, I'm sorry about that, Your Honor.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
I'm gonna reserve the rest of my time for a vote.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Patrick Burns on behalf of the appellees, City of Los Altos, Christopher Jordan and Kirk Ballard.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
Your Honors, this case presents a textbook case for the application of claim preclusion and the rationale behind that rule that Your Honor has already raised.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
Mr. Ramachandran filed multiple lawsuits here below in state and federal court alleging all of the same conduct that the city

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
and some combination of its attorneys and Mr. Ramachandran's neighbor conspired against him to violate his rights.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
Rather than bringing all of his claims, which were all based on the same events and the same alleged harm, into one lawsuit, he chose to bring them in multiple actions.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
And when that one action resulted in a judgment in the state court, he tried to maintain the same claims in the case below.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
But once a plaintiff has brought such claims, it has one indivisible right, or one primary right,

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
And once a judgment is entered, it is preclusive of other pending claims on the same primary right.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what happened here.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
The state court entered judgment on Mr. Ramachandran's claim that he was deprived of constitutional rights.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
And once that happened and it was final, he no longer has the ability to maintain the pending claims below.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
The district court's order on this point is exactly right.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
It analyzes it perfectly.

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
It rejects the arguments that there are multiple rights simply because they're dressed up as different causes of action.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
whether it was malicious prosecution or his constitutional claims, it all stems from the same harm because the primary right theory is concerned with the harm a plaintiff has endured, not whatever legal theories you dress it up as.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
And here, all the harm is the same.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
It's based on the inspection of Mr. Ramachandran's home, which he claims was unlawful, as well as the criminal prosecution of him.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
That entire story is the same in the pleadings in both cases.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
And therefore, there has to be a preclusive effect of that state court judgment.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
We could see why this is so problematic in a civil litigation context, just as Your Honor pointed out in questioning of counsel.

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
If a plaintiff has endured harm, and that harm could fit into two, three, four legal theories, the law cannot allow him to bring two, three, four different cases, or you're having multiple chances at the same thing.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
So what the law does is it requires a plaintiff to bring all the claims into one case, dispose of them at once, and if he doesn't,

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
If he did have, for example, a different kind of constitutional theory, he has to bring that up in the first case.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
And once that's adjudicated, it's preclusive of everything.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
Counsel, how do you respond to opposing counsel's argument that the city withheld discovery and that the district court erred in stating when that discovery was produced or known to Mr. Ramachandran?

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, the first point on there was a

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
It appears to me to be a typo in the district court's order where the district court says that certain depositions were taken in 2019 and it met early 2020 the district court analyzed that in terms of undue delay, but that's not dispositive of anything because the primary rationale in the district court's order.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
If we're discussing the denial of leave to amend was undue prejudice.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
The district court noted that at that time the case was about to go to trial.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
He would be reopening discovery and all these new defendants.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
He would have this new Rico claim, which the court analyzed was different.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
And it's worth pointing out that the court allowed him to allege all the facts he wanted to allege.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
He actually got to add one of the parties in this case, Christopher Jordan.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
So that was something the district court allowed him to do.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
It was really just when he tried to bring in all the city's attorneys, the district court said, that is going to completely upend this case, make us do it all over again.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
So prejudice was really what carried the day, and it didn't matter.

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
Now, in terms of his comment about from 2017 to 2021, there was stonewalling of discovery.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
First, that's not true, and Appellant hasn't

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
cited to anything in the record to really show that.

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
Second, it's his burden as the plaintiff to go take that up with the district court.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
I mean, if he thinks discovery was stonewalled by the time this summary judgment order was granted, he could have filed motions to compel, he could have asked the district court for that information.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
Instead, he sat back, and now he wants to point to evidence that wasn't properly before the district court when it rendered all these orders.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
The email from the city attorney saying that there's a property specific process that was never before the district court.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
That was something that came out 11 months after the fact.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
He didn't move in any way to try to reopen or get that in front of the district court.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
It's, of course, insignificant and doesn't matter anyway.

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
There's nothing in that that would show any kind of equal protection violation, but it's just simply not borne out by the record that there was any kind of problem with discovery or stonewalling of discovery.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
And that wasn't the primary rationale of the order that denied him leave to amend it anyway.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
It was undue prejudice that would iner to the defendants.

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
And I'm happy to answer any other questions the court may have on the other orders in terms of going back to the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
Really, this takes care of the entire case, because once the state court judgment was entered, it's preclusive of everything in the case below.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
That was the primary rationale of a bunch of different cases by this court, including the Tekashi case, the Boken case,

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
The Tekashi case says the same actions by the same group of officials at the same time that resulted in the same harm will end in preclusion.

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
Now, counsel has advanced this argument today and he's advanced it below and in this appeal that these aren't the same parties.

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
Frankly, that is a frivolous argument.

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
There was one additional defendant in the state court action, but the judgment that was entered is the judgment as to the parties here.

[00:14:01] Speaker 01:
Citi, Christopher Jordan, and Kirk Ballard are all the same parties.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
And there is no authority, I'm not aware of any case where simply because

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
The first judgment included more defendants in the overall action that somehow that would destroy its preclusive effect when you still have the same overlap of the defendants moving in the second case to dismiss the second case.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
Does the presence of the Jacobs make any difference?

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor, that's exactly what I'm trying to argue is the Jacobs had a judgment entered against them.

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
My clients had a judgment entered against them, and then my clients sought preclusion in this case.

[00:14:35] Speaker 01:
If perhaps it was the other way around and the defendant wasn't a defendant in the first case that would be a problem right but here we just have more defendants in the first case and actually the record shows the Jacobs filed their own anti-slot motion and that just the trial court in the state court judgment granted it for those specific reasons I mean there were different claims against them so.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
It doesn't make a difference here and it shouldn't have any kind of.

[00:14:58] Speaker 01:
effect on this case as the district court analyzed and rejected both that argument in the motion for judgment on the pleadings as well as in his rule 59 and rule 60 motions that came up again in the district court kept asking him for any authority where that would destroy privity between the parties and Mr. Ramachandra has never provided it.

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
I just want to respond to a couple other things that counsel said at one point

[00:15:25] Speaker 01:
Council said there is no case where malicious prosecution was preclusive of another case.

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure if that's true.

[00:15:30] Speaker 01:
I'd have to go back and look if any of the cases we cite involved malicious prosecution, but it really doesn't matter and it kind of reflects a misunderstanding of the primary rights doctrine.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
The actual cause of action, the actual statutory or constitutional violation you're alleging is not what matters.

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
What matters is the overall harm you are alleging against these defendants and the redress you're seeking from the court based on the events that led to that harm.

[00:15:53] Speaker 01:
So here, whether it was malicious prosecution, Fourth Amendment violation, in the state court action, he had an Unruh Act claim, which is an anti-discrimination statute in California.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
He had another claim that was similar.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
All of that doesn't matter because of this primary rights theory and for all the reasons why the law encourages a litigant to bring all of its claims at once.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
As far as the I just want to go back a little bit to the property specific process email.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
Council brought that up again as I said earlier my presentation that was not before the district court.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
He never tried to get it before the district court and proceedings except in connection with his rule 59 rule 60 motion which didn't meet the standard there.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
And frankly, nothing in that email would change the outcome of the equal protection ruling anyway.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
The district court's order on the equal protection ruling reasoned that there was no evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination or disparate treatment and selective enforcement.

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
The evidence that he had brought below was basically a PRA request that Mr. Ramachandran said he analyzed and put in his own declaration that

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
there was this impact on various different housing, the district court said that that was hearsay, not credible, it was leaving things out and she essentially rejected that.

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
Then he brought up a couple other pieces of evidence about statements made to him by city officials, things like that, and the district court rejected that.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
simply having an email from the city attorney saying that we deal with these code violations and these code enforcement issues on a property by property basis, which is true and doesn't indicate anything about disparate treatment doesn't really move the needle there on that issue either.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
Finally, even if any of these interim orders like the summary judgment order

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
or the motion to leave to amend were somehow reversed, it still all then falls back in the fact that the entire case would be precluded.

[00:17:46] Speaker 01:
So really, the order on the motion for judgment on the pleadings is what really resolves everything here, because if the state court action precludes this one, it really precludes everything, because none of those other claims are based on any kind of different facts or any kind of different alleged harm.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
With that, if the court has no further questions, I'm happy to...

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
submit on that.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
Very well.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
We'll hear rebuttal.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, under Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 585 U.S.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
87, the Melissa Prosecution Judgment, which is founded upon the Fourth Amendment, cannot preclude the First Amendment retaliation claim.

[00:18:53] Speaker 03:
The Council spoke about... Well, let me ask you this, though.

[00:18:56] Speaker 03:
Do you have that's a different factually?

[00:18:59] Speaker 03:
I understand your argument about your different legal theory, but what do you have different factually in this suit that you didn't have in the prior suits?

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
In the first amendment of advertising claims?

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
Basically, the argument is you had the same nucleus of facts for all of these claims.

[00:19:21] Speaker 03:
And my question is, is that right?

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
And if not, tell me why.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
It's not right, because you have a series of first amendment retaliation claims incidents.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
He's being retaliated against on the basis of him trying to state his rights with the City of Los Altos Missile Code.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
He's making several claims.

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
And then you have a singular incident where you have a malprosecution where you have a person trying to be prosecuted on the basis of one single act.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
So the malprosecution is not, it's a fourth amendment violation.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
It's not the same as the first amendment violation.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
This is two different harms entirely.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
And that's the important part here, Your Honor.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
It's not that a harm of a bunch of acts against Mr. Rochandra.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
The harm is you have a fourth amendment violation as opposed to a first amendment violation.

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
No, I get that.

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
I get your argument on that.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
But I mean, what different facts do you have?

[00:20:16] Speaker 03:
I know you're saying there's a different harm.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
I get that.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
But look, it appears from the complaints that it's the same nucleus of facts that underline each theory.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
Is that true?

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
Facts are the same, Your Honor.

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
I agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
But the problem with that is that the same facts can evince two different harms.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
And one harm is the first movement harm.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
Another harm is the fourth movement harm.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
Two different harms.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
And so no matter how we dress it up, there's no case that allows you to preclude

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
the first amendment of retaliation claims with the fourth amendment.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
Counsel, that gets back to my earlier question.

[00:20:56] Speaker 02:
The facts are the same.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
You pursue one theory in the state court proceeding, and now you want to do a different theory in federal court.

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
Why not do them all at the same time?

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
You have one consolidated case based upon the same nucleus of facts asserting two separate harms.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
Mr. Roman-Chang has tried to do that with a RICO claim in 2009.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
and 20.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
And the same court that precluded it said that those claims were not the same.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
So the same set of facts in 2020 were not deemed to be sufficient to have amendment.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
But later on in 2024, they were deemed to be enough to preclude the case.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
Back to your honest point about the facts, Your Honor.

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
When the first man of the prosecution case was first brought, there was not the ability to bring a military prosecution claim at all.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
There had not been yet an actual violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
So the two separate things.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
He couldn't have brought them at the same time.

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
When he tried... What was the timing on the search of the House and the claim against Mr. Romeshantin?

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
The forms of basis for the militia's prosecution?

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
The malprosecution claim

[00:22:13] Speaker 00:
didn't ripen until, I want to say, 2022, Your Honor.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
Because it had been prosecuted and it was dropped.

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
But that was based upon the search of the House and the claims against Mr. Ramachandran for failing to have proper permits, that sort of thing.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
But Your Honor, he could not have brought a malprosecuted claim at that point in time because it hadn't ripened.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
They had not actually prosecuted him.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
Exactly.

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
He got a favorable result in, what, your 2022?

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
Going back to what counsel said relative to the typographical error, that's a misstatement.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
The district court specifically stated that she believed that the discovery had been in January 2019.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
Therefore, the plaintiff had waited a year before he brought an undue prejudice.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
In fact, it was January 2020 that he brought the actual discovery.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
So it's not a typographical error in the record.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
What's the authority for that claim that this happened in 2020, not 2019?

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
Do you have a citation in the record for that?

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, there is one.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
I can find it.

[00:23:29] Speaker 00:
I apologize.

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
But it is stated in the library.

[00:23:35] Speaker 03:
Judge Gould, if you could be sure you're speaking into the mic, then I can hear you better.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:23:49] Speaker 00:
The Council mentioned the 59 and 60 motion.

[00:23:52] Speaker 00:
That is where the Court had the ability to take into account all of the evidence of such a fraud that we brought to the Court's attention.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
In particular, the issue of the July 3, 2018 correspondence, there's no document in all of the

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
evidence all the record that demonstrates that the July 3rd 2018 Record is actual petitioning conduct.

[00:24:20] Speaker 00:
It does not satisfy that because it was never given.

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
They were filed to the city there were several PRA requests from mr. Romasandra and they were never responded to with an actual code of enforcement complaint.

[00:24:32] Speaker 00:
It didn't never happened the Denial of the most of us for sanctions for example

[00:24:41] Speaker 00:
That was heard in October 2024 That's a point in which the district court took three months to go over the evidence of the fraud which should have happened back when we had the 5960 motion itself I'm gonna Why bring a rule 5960 motion?

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
Why not bring that evidence to the court during the course of the cheating before it's over?

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
Yeah, we had tried that you're very several times.

[00:25:09] Speaker 00:
That's very good good point

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
Travel time we tried to do that and in fact during the 21 months of day Asked for several 11 hearings and the district court denied those we asked that would be allowed again with respect to the motion for summary judgment the ability of the city attorney to say after the fact we have a property specific process is direct evidence of Picking and choosing a result that can't be a stomach under the Constitution

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
Most importantly, it's impossible for the Fourth Amendment claim to preclude a first.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
There are two separate harms by two separate actors at two separate times.

[00:25:54] Speaker 00:
Thank you for your time.

[00:25:55] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
Thank both of you for your arguments this morning.

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
The case just heard will be submitted for decision.