information concerning the amount on the respective farms and on the f s a payments now those records were taken and those records were assembled by and and no number of the records were duplicated for different farms because she had difficulty identifying farm numbers with farm production we even tried to have a gentleman from the a issue a report that clarified that and they objected to that coming into the court we did your honor produce exhibit one sixteen which clarified for the for each of the farms farm them when they were transferred who was the what were the farm numbers with the f s a the testimony is is that my client would go there on an annual basis sometimes betsy would come in size and i guess the majority of the time my client would sign the documents that the secretary of the f s a would prepare them and when farmers would switch numbers over the course of these years those forms weren't always delete not associated with farm operations oser included in his number of eighty six dollars rate or it also goes in and it doesn't take an adjustment for income taxes paid although in his in his statement at motion for reconsideration he says i took that into consideration it doesn't flow with the facts and your honor it wasn't just tax returns because throughout the proceeding judge olson said i'm not going to just provide on tax returns so what we produced is not only the accountant with we produced the records on all of the government payments and we broke those down for him between himself and the land that was transferred to the girls that the judge twenty cents and none of the parties income tax returns or any of the documentation supports that they made a hundred dollars an acre net after tax we believe your honor that the statute and the case armstrong plunket presented was an average based upon yield averages and more happily but it does not the differences occur again what you're going to take office the miss armstrong raised in her by the fact there was no there was if you take into account depreciation that offsets the taxes at least in our fight show that difficult undertaking but if you look at the actual facts that were presented the court ignored the fact and made it made an assumption that years from ninety nine ninety nine through two thousand and three were excellent years and farming the testimonies totally to the opposite of that pot or allen well it was a farm manager testified about the reasons for the farm subsidies in those years was the commodity prices are so low that they needed to have that in order for the farmer even make a profit or break even the same thing was testified to by mr armstrong and by the accountants we presented to the court of governance of the three different analysts that were made and the l b p guarantee a certain commodity price it did and what was the market price for each of those years that it guaranteed that that very based was one there was a market loan payment was another which was combined with yellow and maximize up to seventy five thousand dollars per year my client if we put a schedule in our brief that showed his actual  yield or actual payments from all three programs versus the total he could claim as a producer and one of the difficulties in  farming community at that time was that each producer had limits and the parties acknowledging this even before they split at their daughter listed as a producer on the docks farm in one nine hundred ninety seven evidence that the f s a monies that went to the girls ever came back to david armstrong in fact they invested it themselves the testimony was indeed that they back used that and they bought land for themselves and homes for their families and it did fact that it was diminishing the armstrong estate and in argument we assume the court used the whole thirty two hundred acres as if it was still intact the armstrong but the arms trongs even if they had thirty two hundred acres were limited on their government payments that's not taken into account by that or in addition to the farm profits trying to get to the bottom of all these things or each side to provide certain things mr armstrong was the farm he was solely and completely the farmer from nine hundred ninety eight to two thousand and three he controlled the records which put my client decided disadvantage because she had no ability to get at these records short of what she did which is to request f s a records because the f s a records has this certified acreage that mr armstrong farms now sometimes those eight pieces of acreage were in the name of children but he farmed it he had power of attorney he signed all of the forms it was about a two year us to get these poor thousand pages of f s a records and the reason those important because of course of years we were not able to get the documents necessary to construct with the miracle from operation profits work  so the best scenario then was to put together a model based on these f s a records of what he said on the certified document what your farm and to apply government statistics and  accounts was a much better than average farmer and these are ever statistics that we were using in this model were the mistakes of course there were because the f s a records were far from perfect because like the deck time that we found out we had made a mistake we corrected it and rights of the attention of the court and reports of the attention of counsel in attempting to get a picture on what the profits of of this operation  bruce otherwise you do fall for them so don't don't disagree with you on the other hand on that if you're looking at that aspect of it then in terms of but about land start he used that as a start that wasn't the start and the finish that was the start and mr armstrong during the course of the entire roughly five five years at issue he ensured thirty one hundred was forty one hundred acres that mr armstrong and mr armstrong alone no children ever mentioned in these insurance documents he was insuring thirty one hundred acres so if you look at forty one hundred as your starting point the judge you know the judge indicated i could set the price anywhere between forty five or fifty i think he said and one hundred fifty and i'm going to seven hundred and he had before him in terms of information  bridge they never did it they never we never got the number of acres harvested we never got a specific breakdown of what are the expenses for this farm we never received a list of all government payments for each farm and with respect to these government payments i mean if you look at the ledger and you say all right i'm going to the f s a document and by the way the government payments the reason we've got government payments is because we finally got those f s a records not because they said he got out he didn't produce that i'm going this risk i've got and before that there was mr keith and mr non i and it was just extraordinarily challenging to get any kind of information in this case which gets into the the whole issue of there was there was interest that was assessed on the judgment that i judge olson came up with and initially the assessed interest and nine percent prejudgment interest back to two thousand and five which was the five percent interest in fact there is substantial authority under cases of equity you can assess any kind of prejudgment interest that you believe to be equitable and i believe that judge also mistakenly thought he had to use the interest act and that he had to use five percent and that the interest pre judgment interest actually should be nine percent rather five percent  certainly if you look at our model he could have he ended up with a judgment figure of about seven hundred seventy seven or eight thousand for our client with interest added on he specifically said so he could have in terms of his analysis of all the evidence he could have bet it on the tax made here that they say it should've been added on and his hundred dollar was so far within the range of where they work and where we w considered everything i've said i want to clear the grocery for me he was really frustrated and understandably so because this had gone on so long and there was so many reasons for him to be frustrated in this case and for frustrated because we were all trying the star side really trying to get the information necessary and we couldn't and we put together this model because we had no other choice and because of the delays and things we were then put in a position where ok we present this model and now we're in this position of they're sitting back throwing darts at our model because they've never produced anything and we have to defend that and our expert had  it's not like this case went away because it went up to it went up on appeal then it came back and this whole suggestion that ok things are just gone or there they're thrown away it defies logic to a certain degree he was president by very very able counsel that payments and have a later argument later made because in the earlier record in this case it said things like but landlords didn't want to deal with a messy divorce and that's why transfer i want this is a part of the process from generation supportable and that's what telling the court that's their position i would also point out or to use the entire years from ninety eight to two thousand and this court that's a double dipping it brought up and if you look at the testimony thousand all of that stuff rolled in and was divided by the court in two thousand so all the income from ninety eight to two thousand is in the property division as acknowledged by her in the in the record and your hon her mention it specifically in your ruling in the appellate court you said the debts and the profits generated are to be divided which includes mortgage interest taxes and the like those are legitimate expenses for production of income he can't produce that every year this profit from one year rolled into the next crop and that's yet and so with regard to interest i think you have to make a finding delay that there was some amount of money that was known that he was supposed to pay look at what their proposal is they propose that he paid eighty one point eight million dollars that's seven hundred thousand dollars a year profit that's not related to anything they said that he farms sixty five hundred acres their first a field of knowledge they have thirty one hundred acres she was the bookkeeper she knew what they had and then their model generates all of this extra weight reach all these double counties all of these other assume facts and my client is forced to defend that and there's their position is we should have paid well what should he have paid the fact show what we propose so maybe he should have paid interest one hundred sixty nine thousand but the court said when they asked for interest to september of zero nine hey we don't pay on prejudgment interest in divorces hey there's no i don't determine that september  so how do you go back to zero five and that's why we believe you know what's my client supposed to pay so your honor i believe when you take approach of inflation oh facts and figures which is what the mine and we pointed out we're not any nori facts and this is plunkett knew she was the bookkeeper and she didn't have a whole lot of input into the model so mrs pocock knew how many acres in fact we pointed out in the record how she signed applications for loans where they verified the amount of acreage and her position paper before this court verified th the first time and i and i disagree with counsel we didn't come up with this new theory about transferring leases from government payments that was as we quoted was in our first brief to this court in the first record and with regard to transfer of leases yes the money what did change with the transfer of leases is the money from those farms went to three girls didn't come back to mr armstrong now in our