does that this map does include two particular other rail lines western and i can't remember the rd i was mainline maine much i notice they extend from that classification yard yes the main line in the in the western were were two lines that the government witnesses mr tom turner identified in his deposition he identified those lines in the court reliant or allow the government spro evidence to to say that those other lines or the western or i'm in the main is and did you are you disputing that this picture shows the western in the main line yes we are we will they clarify the western civic line in the main line are included within the real classification york but those lines extend beyond that yard into what we believe was a missing page two an exhibit k into those southern access lines so  wait so so just so i understand just the main line in the western line sort of change names and become a southern access line or is a whole different lot it merges into what we've called the so the nexus and that was a term that we point during the the lawsuit to describe exhibit that was included yesterday and that page two clearly shows what the certain real lines were is that page two identifying and annotate and say here's the seven acce so you're saying there was d basically a mistake yes and what we're saying is that when they return to the exact that i don't know if i mean that's a different theory is it not then and whether this is ambiguous well i think you get to it because what it refers to railroad cost occasionally are well there's got to be a line coming to and from that right as people are putting the trucks on their back and carrying my purse there's got to be lines coming to and from it so those are the lines that are covered well now that that's our point that the government's interpretation leads to an absurd result and to understand if something is not clearly marked i can't tell from just looking at exhibit k what is meant there must be some extremely good evidence to help interpret this otherwise it's ambiguous well at most that's to interpret the understanding of that looking around for any possible other attachment we know they want to include it into the we're not asking the court to go very far afield the very next day after this he was recorded on january th there was a letter that was written from the army to the depot saying that we're going to give you an easement to the classification yard as well as to certain rail lines in the attached to that and one week later the intern into this memorandum of agreement that had exhibit day that had those other rail lines clearly identified and that's that's a significant appendix forty one where it has those other rail lines clearly identified involved that's on the original so it without the government's interpretation leads to an unreasonable result and on its face we submit that these exhibit k was inherently ambiguous and the courts allowed us to b million two thousand and eight with respect to other successors to the original property and those exhibits to those licenses also clearly identify these southern access lines i'd like to also address finally the months contemplated would be granted at no cost to buy the grant or to the grantee in the government has interpreted this to say that does not apply to the successors in the signs we submitted that that construction is unreasonable because the nowhere in the db is or mention that their costs would be assessed to the r t a or anyone else and nowhere in the deed is or a specific reservation of rights expressly stating that the ar and that it was for the very purpose of economic development these are the st sentence in these minute issue here in section a three it needs to be read as a whole in terms of both sentences and section eight  client hopefully but but in this case it seems that perhaps another explanation is that the government would reserving the right to to be charged the potential grantees or for  well that's what the government has argued but i think that that interpretation assumes too much just by the fact that they didn't say and successors and science every time they report the grantee doesn't mean that they that the omission facilities a class yard and the other certain reliance are available currently now were joint use by the r t a and is successors in the science so it it was a vested the begins with the finding the term grantee in the redevelopment agency of two thousand and thirty unless otherwise specifically provided here in this definition alone means that whenever the deed refers to the grantee without any additions or modifications that reference western and the mainline cease to be the western and the mainline where where does a cut off certainly i don't think you're alleging that the easement stops at the edge of the picture right you're saying they have that they have these when all that whole line whatever the whole line have the right to use the western the mind it is only as far as this picture shows and not an inch further we believe so exhibit case clear on its face i didn't understand i thought that the governor i guess i thought your argument was that they have the western the mainline which are the lines that originate here in this reality yard but they can't go beyond those two lines well so the way it's worked for almost twenty years is the southern access lines provide access to the rail classification yard as well as the mainline and west of different successors an interest to the r b a including the peterson group have had a contract with the army in which they pay the army personnel to move their rail cars the appellant's rail cars through the southern access lines and into the rail classification are that's the way it worked with every single successor in interest to the r t a and that's the way it's worked with peterson  appellant's can use the mainline and western pacific line beyond exhibit k but to do that they have to use army services now i think it's spewed here that the deed expressly limits the phrase certain rail lines to exhibit k and it's also on disputed that the southern access lines are not on exhibit k together those two portion of the line shown on exhibit a i'm just still a little perplexed by this argument i thought that it included everything that would might maybe there i guess i'm starting to think maybe there's ambiguity here after all i didn't come in thinking that but i thought when i read certain rail lines it meant those lines not just the portion of those lines shown on exhibit k because it doesn't say the portion shown on exhibit k so i guess i'm confused but just to clarify one thing that the main line in the western pacific line once you go beyond exhibit k they turned into other lines by other names they don't continue past exhibit k for very much if they do it all really the main line and western pacific line are shown on exhibit k it's the vast majority of those lines and possibly those entire lines are shown on exhibit k in fact i believe that the southern access lines connect to the main line  western pacific line in a portion of the area that is not shown exhibit but again your honor just to clarify the lack of annuity exhibit k is what it is whether the court calls it mainline and western pacific line or something else the southern access lines which palance are trying to get access to they are not depicted on and therefore the phrase certain wrong rail lines cannot possibly refer to those lines i got it further questions we asked that the court affirmed the trial court's decision below i think you are i think it is obvious that when you look at exhibit kate it's unclear what what the certain realigns are in the government through its pro lebanon says trying to explain what they think will certain realigns are under the government's interpretation the the the easement stops at the end of that map and that's the it's to what we argued is not a tenable rational result because what good is that is relevant mine exhibit a to the m away that was entered into that same month she says yes that is the lines that was contemplated by the deed she admitted that in her deposition the letter that was issued the day after on january  we're faced with today well i think you can get there in your honor by looking at exhibit k on itself is ambiguous that allows you to get to this extrinsic evidence immediately is no dispirit exhibit k does illustrate and a portion of the southern access to right that's that's true but it but because it came on itself is ambiguous in two thousand and fourteen they did grant an easement to my client recognizing that we had the