declaration of mr hamburger right that the the accounts are opened it's in the complaint the first amended complaint and it accounts for me open and active according to that he also says in his declaration that he saw a receipt that  forged signatures and initials on it that the transaction referenced in the receipt earlier that was in the facts have been consummated what he receives from mr meadows with an unsigned the he says  was a forgery myth correct because to make a police report that this was a two billion dollar soft by brick by virtue of forgery he did not but he was part of this already that part of the spending that the geisha and the receipts that he thought was an unsigned version that only notice that the receipt provided that had requested return of the notes and that merrill lynch was willing to deliver them to if her i did that this retreat which is really relief language was signed by  any transaction which involved merrill lynch or any of its affiliates merrill lynch takes no position on the validity of or issue and assumes no responsibility for this note nor does merrill lynch have any involvement with the responsibility for william meadows with respect to this not otherwise this legend and on and on and on i mean they say we disavow anything with respect to these notes which we had to send an f c c because somebody was looking at them for fraud that doesn't put a reasonable person on notice that there's something hanky  these declarations are provided a motion to compel arbitration they were provided in response to a motion for summary judgment on the basis of statute and patients so we're dealing with a record that is incomplete he was deposited or monetize that puts you on notice i guess that if you ask the statute of limitations question a slightly different way that is at what point do you believe you had notice that you wouldn't have had in terms of your ability to discover that information earlier if for instance this receipt was instead a letter as received in november two thousand and eleven from sit on it and how much money is at stake two billion dollars billion dollars i mean i don't know that's even in hollywood that's a lot of money it is it is a lot of money i think was that would be different case if we want to wait a second in the declaration and it says here i'm reading from this declaration line two of on page sixty nine it says mr meadows had requested that the notes be returned feet which they want to turn return the notes unless you sign this receipt in the receipt again it's really a release of liability at the post to you any assertion of certain fact that the no that's why he wouldn't sign it he didn't want to sign it into the said these things may be bogus and this is what the report about the receipt is that it doesn't mention anything about the accounts which as far as two thousand and eleven there can't believe what they're saying is there aren't any accounts because we've checked that out these things aren't valid you're getting them back and we're saying we have nothing to do with them that that to me it's a huge blinking red light that there's no cash management account because we found out these things are crazy why merrill would accept some nonsense like this in the first place is beyond me the it wasn't until the end of ever two thousand and eleven one of the fabulous so he sat on a two billion dollar case did nothing until two thousand and eleven that you know this thing is not passing the smell test that's the problem with it well here's the issue two billion about it right that's correct and so we just ignore the fact that he actually knows what's going on and they talk about should i do it should i not do a choice and that's that they're talking about whether he should sign this new lease language similar to if you walked into merrill lynch in the first day and they said well before we open your account we're going to give you the right level because he thinks there's two billion dollars floating around that needs to be monetized or not so it's not like walking in and said like to open an account and then he talks to the business guy as business partner about it that night so it's do we just discount that evidence the receipt plus the conversation no but i think there also has to be acknowledgment of the evidence of  and we you know you can base letters of credit or all kinds of crazy things on the method that i can't find anywhere in there even the part that i could read that's not blocked out this is we converted these young notes into some kind of legal tender and that's available if you want to come in and take out a billion dollars  dollars or whatever it is i couldn't find anything this is we converted these into legal tender of the f k r s as you said are they keeping receipt and it says that merrill lynch except overspend where does it say we converted these into legal tender  an accounting of what is in that the council we've yet to see any documents from merrill lynch and if if what so in other words if all that remained were just the notes were still sitting there i gather that's what you'd like those back or your client would like to back that whatever proceeds are in those accounts we want to know well assume there is there are no proceeds right because i don't i mean in terms of the statute of limitations it seems to me if your claim depends on the notion that  didn't find out until two thousand and eleven that the notes hadn't been monetized i think that's just too long of a gap but on the other hand if all you want to do is find out what happened to the notes and i don't see any reason why you would be entitled to bring that claim two they let me ask another question on page three of your reply brief you say that california civil code for section three section three thirty eight eliminates any statute of limitations on trying to recover money from a financial institution section three thirty eight of the code of civil procedure i don't have three thirty eight in front of me i don't it doesn't well i gather i mean listen the way i thought of this and that's why i asked about the counting claim is that let's say that i open a savings account with a bank and i deposit one hundred dollars and you know i forget about it for ten years and i go to the bank in ten years and i say you know what here's my receipt i open this account can you let me know what the status of the funds is in the bank tells that tells me you know we're not going to answer any of your inquiries a good buy i think at that point even though ten years has had a lap since i opened the account i certainly would be able to sue within whatever reasonable time after the you know the  getting the the stonewalling to find out when i got my money and i gather that's kind of what your accounting claim was alleging and it didn't seem to me there's any statute of limitations problem with that now maybe it's just me q and suggested you're not going to get anything that's very helpful but i don't know why the bank would be entitled to tell you we're simply not going to answer any questions let's ask them it's because hornberger didn't have an account at merrill you know the account was in the middle of  think i think the statute of limitations would have expired on that point as well and i think that statute that would be a political would be the claim that that that was attached to which would be the graviton of the claim which would be either the the records the historical records if the account still open yes if the account still opened the account holder could certainly ask for an account ok the count is not open and  hornberger is the judge dropped pointed out is not an account holder and doesn't have any right to any sort of an accounting what happened to the account the account was opened it's not in the record but the account was opened in april two thousand and two thousand and it was closed within thirty days the second account that's referenced on the s k r s was never actually opened so they did open a cash management account correct and if the account holder came today and said i'd like my historical records on my cash management account he would be entitled to those as well correct they don't hold or if mr meadows or perhaps el on behalf of the estate yes ok but i mean that's off the record but we did provide that information they just don't like what's with a place like merrill doing opening the cash management account on the basis of something that on its face looks like a bogus deal two billion dollars with a japanese yen come on and then you i read all this stuff and you're going to stand behind this and letters of credit know all kinds of stuff i don't understand that well you know i did i did reference in the in our pleading and you mention the word earlier bogus right and i think if you look at the details of the safe keeping receipts they have bogus written all over them there are two letters that say per mr meadows request i confirm on behalf of merrill lynch that the following notes nor is it the partnership if you look at the two letters that confirmed the deposit into his account one of them references the s k r four the r that deposited fourteen notes but if you look closely the s k r number on that s k r is different than the number that's on the letter referencing the s k r that deposited those notes into th there in the record so i and it says merrill lynch on it and i i can't go outside of the record to explain the background of it but the receipt for promissory notes that was tendered to mr meadows and i don't disagree with counsel's characterization is as the proposal it was a proposal these were proposed settlement terms affectively that continue to release but in those terms we want merrill lynch wanted mr meadows to agree that they could not determine that the notes were valid and obviously if they were given two billion dollars worth of notes they would have performed significant due diligence to determine if they were val allegation i was looking at there was just that he says i don't know if you repeat in the first a minute complaint but there he says that pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement he had you know a half interest in these notes and the accounts and that upon mr meadows passing  under i don't know whatever terms whatever state documents he had he became the sole owner and so in other words he's alleging they may be true but he's alleging that he is in fact the account holder and he is coming to you  in the kind of boat tell me why the hypothetical i posed poses a statute of limitations problem i guess that's what i don't see well so that claim would have arisen at the same time that all the other claims arose so that statute of limitations would have been either or the claim that was the that it was basically attached to which would be either the preacher fiduciary duty or one of the fraud claims so would have been no i'm just saying that i gave you money or property for safekeeping there was no fixed term which that agreement was to expire i guess i could see if you had only agreed to hold it for a year and then i waited ten years to come and inquire that would be one thing but as i read the safe keeping receipts it just sounded like it was an open ended indefinite agreement to hold this property for me ok so i forgot about it for ten years and i come to you your ten and i say i just want to status up there what's going on with my property and at that point you say actually we don't have any record of these accounts so we're not going to answer any more questions i think i could sue at that point and be timely for an accounting claim could i don't see how the statute of limitations could have run on that claim well so you're i think in that instance your your basic premise is that that claim didn't begin to run until for example two thousand and eleven when he asked for an accounting and what i'm suggesting is that the claim began to run back to two thousand and two for all of these when he under when he received information that put him on notice that merrill lynch claiming any responsibility for the notes or mr meadows and so that that would have triggered the running on all of the claims including an accounting claim because if you knew in two thousand and two that merrill lynch was was going to destroy the notes given to turn him over to the state as unclaimed property i mean the agreement that he thought he had with you again i'm just going on what his alleged is that there was you were going to hold these notes for safekeeping indefinitely well so that agreement in the in the alleged safe keeping receipts was formed in two thousand in two thousand and two if you received additional information that basically brought that into question because the s k r s and the deposit receipts and the letters basically said you know merrill lynch is keeping in safe keeping for you two billion dollars worth of assets whether they were converted to cash or with just the notes and so based on that alone i would agree that there wouldn't be anything that would tell him he needed to seek an accounting or pursue any other claim on till two thousand and two and two thousand and two merrill lynch unequivocally told them that you know there is a problem with the notes as far as you understand based on the s k r s and the deposit receipts so that would have triggered inquiry notice for him at the very minimum to seek an accounting or to pursue any of the other claims and he didn't do that until two thousand and eleven i think it's just because i'm not as  that as a condition of giving them back merrill lynch insisted that meadow sign this thing with allowing them to six that whatever you call endorsement and that meadows said no i'm not going to sign the two of them talked and he said no i'm not into science so why wouldn't the plaintiff of just assume that ok well since you all imposed mentos signing of the thing as a condition to the return that maybe they never were returned and you therefore still have them and all i want to find out is what happened to my notes because the the the receipt put meadows i rather mr hamburger on notice of a lot more than just that it put them on notice that the notes were transmitted to the s b c in connection with the fraud investigation  them on notice that merrill lynch wanted a legend placed on each of the notes affirming that those notes had never been involved in any kind of a transaction with merrill lynch at all and that they had no connection war responsibility for mr meadows and the fact that they were if they were never placed if they were if the notes had never been involved in any transaction that involved merrill lynch that's a glaring red flag that says wait a minute i thought these things were deposited i have safe keeping receipts and deposit receipts that reflect a billion dollars worth of transactions i'm on notice that if i want an accounting or i want to file a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or anything else the clock is beginning to run i don't understand why the clock would run on accounting he might have forsworn actual claim against merrill lynch for any kind of activity bot candy ask about the his account at any time i mean assuming he isn't a proper accounting older if he's a proper account holder in the county is open yes ok i would agree with that so there is no statute on that aspect well there is there is a statute section three forty three catchall which is four years so after four years his accounting claim is gone thank you i see my i have about a minute left so actually you're over a minute i'm over  adam because they're ready means something have you given hornberger an accounting have got a lot of what happened in the notes yes that's what i thought yes you asked about the cases about nothing counsel asked about or suggested that they were shown the recent trials and that he originally saw the unsigned receipt in two thousand and eleven i'm sorry two thousand and two and then two thousand and eleven they got a letter from merrill lynch from me basically saying various things and that we were going to continue to respond to requests and then his declaration i did put this on the record they did in two thousand and it wasn't until two thousand and fourteen that mr hornberger or that his counsel saw a o there was a prior law from who filed the complaint we spent about six months going back and forth with those lawyers providing various documents and information showing that the accounts were  open when one account was opened when it was closed that the other count was not opened there was i believe for the second account there may have been a new account form that was filled out but that's the first step in opening an account and it never went to the second step  and then it was at it wasn't there was actually a lawyer before this who i dealt with who didn't file a claim and we provided a lot a lot of this information he was representing armor he was representing mr hornberger back in two thousand and eleven and then in two thousand and thirteen the law from that filed the complaint they interacted with them for about six months and it was my understanding that they understood the information that we had provided and then and then they switched counsel and filed first amended complaint and we made additional efforts to meet with counsel to show them the same information same binder of exhibits that i prepared for the original attorneys and here we are thank you the six solely statue imitations grounds and whether that was an error and i think it's it's clear that the court was in error in granting that motion and certainly an error in not allowing us t that the state of meadows and they meadows maintained the address for the account received information and that reasonably hornberger out assume that any information regarding those accounts was being received by her