So so courts are supposed to interpret the law. Right, but they’ve set up these extra digit. They, they set up their own procedures, right? And in my case, I had a dispute because I believed my landlord was charging me more than was permitted under rent control law, so I had a legal basis for the dispute. That the landlord responded to with an unlawful detater. And eviction, would you believe? And this is what I’m trying to hit home. The issue of the $132 did not come up once once as a matter of fact, it’s what led me to. It’s what led me to like. Cut off ties with my own lawyer. Because she accused me of wasting her time. My lawyer because I wanted to go to trial. I’m like I want this issue to be decided. I might be wrong, but I believe that there is a legal basis for what I’m doing. Nope, and then to add insult to injury. The court allowed her to withdraw after I pointed out that there was a conflict of interest that my landlord’s attorney served on their organization’s board. All right, all procedure. Wow, not. I tried unsuccessfully to to file opposition, stating that there were substantive. Or what are called meritorious claims? Never considered so something seems smelly about that. That the court is using is issuing things that have the weight of law. Based on procedural based on procedure, they’re saying, oh, you fucked that slap thing. Oh, that was timelier. That wasn’t timely well, when they issue a ruling effectively, they’re not ruling applies to the matter for which the so it seems to me that there’s a situation where You get the weight of law simply by following procedure, right?