rover is now back and so we will hear from mr sigmund in case number three for today co exists foundation against fehrenbach there and we will not have any argument from the aptly thank you good morning when he decided to take what eventually turns out to be this two million dollars the you know i guess it's one fifty then it's three then it's one fifteen then the other one point five come in and he invests it with assured capital which is a florida company but why isn't that enough of an action in florida on behalf of the husband of entities to come so i don't think by investing the money he is selling the security i think the act of selling if it's actionable has to be the act of convincing somebody to make a transaction so that's a different theory there's  no sale that when he pays money to them that's somehow you know an investment or something it's it's a purchase actually i so i think there's two different and for that there is no actual consideration the court disagreed but i don't think the evidence of considerations there now at the second transaction where fehrenbach are then it takes the combined money his own money along with lebanon's stolen money and puts that with the sure capital that's a different transaction in that is a transaction in florida there is a transaction in violation of the securities act and the other is a transaction that had consideration because assured kept it but i don't think that's the same findings about all of the transactions between fair and barker and ha been taking place in illinois earlier in the litigation venue was transferred from florida to illinois earlier in the litigation certain defendants were dismissed because they had no connections with florida and get an intermediate point summary judgment was granted on many of these counts because actions weren't taking place in florida and i think the ruling sort of ignores the at in in the ruling it's just doesn't ever touch on what the florida transactions would be as between fear and barker and halderman which you remind me how long this two million dollars stayed in the escrow account before the assured purchase happened i think it was a matter of two or three months because first that there was one hundred twenty five and then one hundred seventy five thousand put in and a hundred fifty returned in it seem like if he would have sold the investment if the money it come from public while not a personal injury but i think the question is is he victimized by the deceit and it's not just the  stewart because that's not his only deceit it's also the representation of who he is so he represents the fear and biker that he's made this money as a racecar driver that he knows the bush family that he has a private jet that he has a friendship who needs a twenty five million dollar loan it's the stolen money plus the representation the misrepresentation of what money that is and how he got it and who he really has had fehrenbach or knowing that he's dealing with a fellow had fear someone already convicted of securities fraud with a long trail of civil fraud judgments in felony convictions and that the money had been stolen from an athlete he certainly never would have gotten involved so  and to all of this shouldn't he have done some research about you know when you're talking about these large farm probably he should here but the question of whether he's victimized by the  i think he certainly is to make that point further i want to segue into the issue of consideration because he is not a seller of anything without some type of consideration and the only basis that the ford used is this it seems like he's just trying to make a while vacation for his family that doesn't really seem like consideration for a two million dollars deal over the e mail says devise i have it from the record next part of the compensation i want you to consider is a couple of domestic flights for me and my family for in total from du page two flights are to florida give some dates one is to hawaii and one is to vegas i ask that these flights are paid out of your dividend so i think that's why the district judge thought that this was consideration well he does use the word phantom seizure but back to my point that if this is the consideration then he is victimized by this man's crimes while he stands now a judgment debtor of almost seven hundred thousand dollars failure of considerations what you're saying that's a reason to set aside a contract while not just there i'm saying that if that's the consideration his the stolen money but he himself where barker was directly victimized by believing the stuff about the private jets by working that into a request for consideration and therefore now students with a judgment against him that i don't think should be allowed to sta based on lack of consideration based on lack of florida turn texts and based on the clean hands doctrine that this man was duped that stolen money in that to let this judgment stand perpetuate and complete a crime now before you sit down i know you're really the wrong person to ask this of the we checked the florida business registry and looks like coexist went out of existence for a while but now he's been reinstated as a corporation in florida and i gather mr hardman is off in switzerland is that correct yes and you know what you're going to get out of this even if you were to guess you wouldn't have and i pay i know a little bit about it because i made a motion to dismiss shortly before trial when i learned from checking myself that co exist foundation wasn't actually a corporation in good standing we argued this issue in that the court did allow co exist to come in on the day of