that's a far cry from saying that the person who took the money is also gets the benefit of that state if you want to teach and in fact the washington cases in the back of my appendix calls it quite clearly the defendant was accused of stealing checks worth several funds did have some relationship to the settlement in king county not michigan but in king county and to ron in nets when he had zero interest left in the company because granted my motion to dismiss in its entirety although it was a middle east silence as the statute of limitations are and that's essentially not before the court today plaintiff the motion to reconsider that order the motion to reconsider it purported to address the entire earth which dismissed all the causes to my clients and the vast majority of the contest to miss serves its clients the main defense however the motion to reconsider was that the settlement of the two thousand five days had nothing to do with the opening refunds for those other other claims in fact those allegations were the central part of that two thousand  thousand and six assignments that were executed twenty four thousand dollars this page and two hundred thousand dollars was paid what were in those amounts for very little is something done completely my client had nothing to do with on the members with those withdrawals being taken into consideration they had waived any claim to possession of those assets in the future banksias being the bank in the plaintiff would not be able to enter into a contract to change the rule of law which is that there has to be damages and once someone is nagel there are no longer damages and that is basically the crux of this case they no longer have the time of the agreement and the exclusion busy of your client in the yellow sea and had no access organization the fact that she sent back and did nothing to get information to find out what was going on she alleges that your client florrie would not let her near the entity and there is some basis for that defend against to just say well she wouldn't let me what does that does that mean that you know she she i mean her to somebody not to let somebody fulfill their legal obligations they only don't let them do it if they choose it but it's not prohibiting me or preventing me from doing it so this thing the allegation that she was prohibited from having contact or prohibited from having information she legally have the right to obtain that information she chose not to exercise her rights and that is the only reason she didn't have any information now because it's more in protocols has some kind of magical ability to keep her father from having contact with her or her magical ability to just having referring to these accounts which are the exact same allegations made in two thousand and five that were made in two thousand and eight that were made in the case that was completely by mr crump ho establish what date the information did more should have been discovered they made no attempt to do that in their complaint they alleged that it was not until two thousand and six where ever the case that was filed in two thousand five and taints the exact same allegations exact same allegations so obviously the trial court decided that they could have that information that they should have had that information but it didn't have that information before their name date of two thousand and six because they use that information in two thousand and five it was being no effort to sell us any day prior to two thousand five hundred quid or should they feel to fulfill their