fact the statute of limitations had not run i would like to begin the argument by going directly to the two questions that were asked by the court on january twelfth of that this year after the firings of the bra in which the court directed us to to a principle issues the first issue was when in fact did the plaintiff had actual knowledge and that one i would like to say precisely this that the particular prachi i believe that fifty five sixteen years old the only thing she had left was her house after the divorce she cashed that again purchased a a condominium and with the rest of the money way was owned by the bank and which through and which the brokerage firm parallels a commission or a rebate to the person who had suggested to the client that they growl and invest their money in this particular account there were two things that were necessary with regard to the investment with the client not sophisticated did not know the difference between stock or bonds made it very plain that unless she could have keep her money intact and also generate fifteen thousand dollars a month for her living expenses that she wasn't interested the representations made to her was that this could be done and would be done if she made two thousand july eleventh two thousand and three when you go through or in june two thousand and two these facts told her different from everything else that they had sad that they were no longer going to do already properly answered the question because in review send each case you have a non sophisticated person and that's left up to the jury in the davis case to have a sophisticated person  i can personally or is this a person who doesn't know anything about the market with the kind of facts that they get to put the person on notice where they the kind of facts that would generate suspicion over them more than that the fact of the matter in this case is that from the very beginning rich by the way we did not know which is interesting even after we filed the case was that from the very beginning they knew with this amount of money that they would not be able to generate the fifteen thousand a month we grew this to the clear in our brief and i would and i direct the court's attention to that that particular that two point two million there is no way you could come up with fifteen thousand dollars a month and we directed the court's attention to page seven seventy five hour of context and i want to read just one for a graph from there now th is the chairman of the board and he stared at page ninety four of his deposition any for what but it's page seven one seven of the record in this case that outlines beginning rhymes from thirteen to twenty he said that he said if somebody checked after going to be one hundred in equity equity as we know generates probably two percent yield on average there is no way or no way there is no way that percent that's forty thousand a year and if he's trying to make you know fifteen thousand a month then she then goes out that's far more than she could they do from the beginning and did not tell her and they had already established they had already established a relationship not only with the bank that gave her the money to buy her property and then since her to the broker that the bank around with a rebate  worry about it but they said promise not a promise it's a statement within a year to be different so she stuck and she stuck with them based upon their statements their statement was the glue that held her together to them and it and not have any factual disputes for the purpose of summary judgment but i know factual disputes in risk case this is a very straightforward timeline story of a situation where someone something they did much too long to bring th let's let me pause on that i realize she waited quite a while after she had statements showing her account was going down and of course she was on including noticed that a representation that she could get fifteen thousand per year per month rather i guess one hundred eighty way that they would retain the two point two million dollars principal and she would be able to withdraw fifteen thousand dollars a month and they would not have to touch the principal no sophisticated and i don't believe would the plaintiff has put together her set of facts and her side of facts that that was the promise that was false when it was made once the facts are such that you can see that promise is no longer true when they have to spend the money that was and if you take what she has played as true which we do for the purpose of said my judgment and for this argument and you will correct the facts that she puts on her complaint certainly  argue maybe in the very first account statement maybe not as it goes on and on and on fifteen account statements later and finally in march of two thousand and one she has  with employee of the defendant and who says to her your account was mismanaged and she doesn't have to get you know she i have to get a confession from the defendants which is what she started out with m shouldn't have been because they were riskier than what i wanted that's part of her case but when you are behind her case when you listen to the argument so far this morning has been discussed all the papers the different cases you promised me that i could invest this that i would get fifteen thousand dollars a month and that's the principle would not be touched and that's a very specific promise that she claims that she relied on that she claim received those documents and that they were there for her and no one put them from her and no one i like other cases said to her you don't need to look at these documents when you look at the various courts who have dealt with this it almost doesn't matter because it's kind of a schematic difference of how you determine circuit although not deciding what whether including notes would apply discussed if it would they would go to the tenth circuit articulation which applies to reasonable investor standard anybody is hiding information from her she gets all the information she gets more of them once a month she made said she testify she understands the bottom line she started her tax returns were she lists her profession as  you get to this particular timeline then you realize that right temporarily of two thousand the promise that she claims she relied on is not coming to fruition that counterbalances going know the principle and that it continues to go up a while and every single month it drops further down and she writes in her notes that she's concerned and worried and run finally in march of two thousand and one she has lunch point one of these things we're not going to be punished for account if she was going to go and ask to have her account replenished she knew that her promise had not been fulfilled and when she gets a lawyer in june of two thousand and two and she waits another year before filing her lawsuit what did the president tell or other thing we're not going to replenish tell or anything else not that i'm aware of another year so what's interesting about this case was this is not a case where if your client coronary lists you need to agonize about it she found out on day one any kind of articulation of a time period you could argue i think very persuasively that she was not on notice and certainly in some of the cases the talk about prospective students that can't pick the contradict well assurances that the prospectus was given notice she was not noticed when she got the first written documents from the bank when she opened her account that the written documents cut contradicted this alleged all promi she was clearly i noticed in february of two thousand when the balance traps but well her to point to she continues to be i notice she said i noticed in march of two thousand and one she's not noticed that in june of two thousand and two i'd like to talk for a minute about the wide ripple cations of this case if you were to accept the respondents position in this case there are thousands of elderly women in america who now have an asset they never had before and that is the family home that's no longer worth thirty forty thousand dollars is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars or a million dollars has said the whole question of what's a reasonable effort and she actually tastings is so fact intensive that summary judgment should really be granted it depends on the individual what is reasonable notice it means that the investor in their circumstances acts differently so you cut her more slack than warren buffett or whether it means they kind  of sort of a skill level of investors a certain skill level is a reasonable investor that's what we look to when that person right the first statement right she says with the storm warning and the effect of that is to say follow suit you got that you could follow suit proof right and as was pointed out so congrats says you're claude shows is a profile is declining that can't be right now i have the same trouble you doing for you letting the language of a rule that would make this distinction the best i can come up with is the standard jury instruction that the trial court should give the jury that she has to be reasonable in vet investor to take into account all the evidence in this case that there was none at all that's the best you can do i mean how do you define heidi peps and that's what they're going to say and they're confident they can keep saying it because the statute ations that it really happened it was triggered triggered by that first notice and times going to go by and the lady anybody it's people like him to get them to invest in the stock market this is what makes america strong is to get that money capital flowing into american companies they're not going to do