and that was back in two thousand and one in that matter we filed a complaint which was initially dismissed we refile the first medical complaints and the defendants including  defendants here all answered that complaint including affirmative defenses of the matter progressed forward a bit and we chose to voluntarily dismiss the action of the filed a complaint and a first a medic complaint only in this case which we believe is a completely new action and what happened in two thousand and one is irrelevant and there are statements in there about multiple filings trying to sta contracts follow will avoid a lot of all of the part of a culture regulates these matters including the terms of the contracts so what they were doing at that point was in a way i guess playing the market with the market went up then through the terms of the contract they would gain an additional saw for the sale of their green the problem that can result is of the market goes down which it did here that they could end up being paid too much they've reviewed the contracts they reviewed the terms and said you're not owed anybody job and in fact you owe money to the grain or in between the two of you you owe two hundred fifteen thousand dollars and that's exactly when we file suit against those two individuals for the part of agriculture has an administrative rule of that they follow when an elevator fails as to how they determine the price of grain is priced on the day of the filler that's what the state of illinois admit well he did that he also went to the extent of making the statement in there that we showed a valid and forcible security at first and it well i think we certainly have one i don't believe that that's something for the court to rule on a motion to dismiss under two six fifteen even though i think he was looking at it over them looking for for a legally deficient complaint on its face and he was looking at things other than he should have been looking at the was trying to get a greater price but in addition to this we have attached in the complaint we've tried with a motion to reconsider copies of the same contract which your claim which written physicians are in the possession of these defendants but don't have those markings and that's one of the bases why we think the court here in dismissing with prejudice if he was the court was alarmed with the markings on there then we can certainly refile the second invented complaint with clean going on and they didn't make any markings on their contracts because they didn't need to the rhythm elements to that contract are what's important here and the trial of course has been i think focused improperly on the markings on the are not some of these markings possibly it will be interpreted in your favor the term and in the future it normally requires a means by which that future date is readily ascertainable could you explain to me how some and i want to make it maybe i'm focusing on something in the brief because of counsel included in there that the fact that two of the owners were charged with criminal conduct as a result of this i don't make it clear that criminal conduct in the documents for the record shows they have nothing to do with these conflicts and they were charged with criminal conduct for other renters and what happened here with these contracts they were not charged with any criminal activity whatsoever so that's i guess what i make this clear the yes the greenery fail and yes the the green was priced at that point that it wasn't because the owners did something with these contracts to disturb them in a way to cause them to want to be o contract that says you're going to buy a widget for one dollar and i don't need to after you give me the widget if you attach the contract to your complaint and a contract indicates that the price of the widget was a dollar you can't attach a document then you will require to plead in conformity with that document any nine conformities deemed to be superseded by the document so what i was trying to get into when i answer the question was having attached the yes they do i believe they do because you originally said the date of the june thirtieth date was contained in a document that hugh constructed or reconstructed or manufactured as the receiver seeing that specific documents right now i believe we were consistent with the book that the save the same point is you know if there's a problem setting that it seems to me that giving us the all the that we are able to plead a case against these individuals and they file the answers and to say that we've tried four or five times and haven't been able to plead the case against these people is simply not true that the two thousand and one cases support me they don't they don't hurt me they they able to show that has nothing to do with this case because the great already been delivered so but that point they could withdraw the answers they were they are fact the matter is they did file a motion for summary judgment in the two thousand and one cases and in fact those were the pending when we filed a motion of voluntarily dismissed and the fact is they had every right to demand that those motions be heard before voluntarily dismissal motion was heard and they waived that they did  the case in the argument that is this case really it is the two thousand and six case the same cases the two thousand one case the fact that it's been in your honor picked up on this already that the fact that judge gunder fabrications and what happens is and then we get sued one of the questions you raise before which was the arbitrariness of picking august eleventh a deed of closure or for june thirtieth tables does i mean and i'm not quite sure your honor which which big they are actually using because in one of their action the motion reconsider they argue it was the dig the green room close which was august eleventh  market was going down ok and that's where there are allegations that my clients own more money because the market is going down and on the harvest the eleventh being the price is very low but now here's where that becomes a that are traded becomes to the money ok and the grammar is also going to make a profit from right as well so all that's why is that if this can never be pleaded as a breach of contract case which is what it is allegedly so  at the time your original pleading as you noted in the motion reconsideration and their big day attached to that in a proposed second amended complaint it's very interesting because that's the very first time that they start talking about this this two thousand pleadings anywhere really how this process works and how these amendments were agreed so and therefore they can never even establish the existence of contracts let alone any breach of contract with the countries call for the is they have to you know weather and so forth they're already risk built into their business model they can't afford that the market price is going to be that much of a risk so they enter into these contracts with the idea that ok if the market goes off i need to make that in any way match up with what's being played here so i don't see the way to be sure of this made me perhaps there are some you know a federal way to cure this but i think maybe he was in a way throwing a bone so to speak to sue the plaintiff the pleadings and that's to give you some discretion i don't think the judge from our views discretion which what your response to mr lindstrom's argument to this was something that should not have been granted under a two six fifteen i believe i've been asked something as to whether or not it was more in the nature of a summary judgment motion whereby the plaintiff is required to argue believe present a situation that would that very often what pops up is whether or not there should be a verse if whatever it was the water's not ever completely completed was there any any evidence of any career or attempt to obtain recission and not that i've seen not on the record or on you know if there were how would the day after that the green read goes out of business and i mean the date there is a profit to be made such that the greenery owes them additional monies they may not be able to realize that if the grain really goes bankrupt and doesn't have sufficient funds but i don't see any citation that you've given us that would indicate that the fact that the greenery went out of business but there was a term in the contract that indicated that if it does go out of business and this is the date that is to be determined and the date that the parties agreed would be the date in which the price would be set is there a clause in the contract to that effect oh well then why are you claiming that that is supposedly part of the contract because it's all regulated it's regulated business and that's not doing business if that if the greenery breached the contract but my feeling is you're either just pointed out to me that's a defense what does the fact that it's regulated have to do with the price of corn in china i don't understand i mean i'm not well first degree relation of the license screen reso i'm not aware of anything that says that because it's regulated that there's some authority that says that what you're saying is correct  determined no you're not owed money you owe money to the grain or the fact that you have a link doesn't indicate or establish that you have the right to set the date by which the the other party who has the right to set the