know you certainly may start your argument that the court may interrupt your argument with questions that we have and i know i have several of my colleagues may have several but preliminarily i'd like to ask you it's kind of certificate used in the opening brief it is not twelve points for us to review the denial of line of motion for actual summary judgment when there is the denial summary judgment motion in the case proceeds to trial any error merges into the judgment entered  answers so you know i believe that issue was preserved what the depicts but i don't know how it could be preserved for us to rely on it if it merged into the judgment entered after the trial well the judge and i just got to move on to a different subject talked about the damages here being  incompatible with the jury factual findings and you use the term inconsistent incompatible in your grief you know be clear about what you are arguing you're not arguing that there are any was when they kill in consistency in the verdict that using that term of that term as a term of art right your argument is that the verdict was an essence against the manifest way to be evidence that the evidence would have required a different verdict is that your argument counsel lost wages which was not and evidence was not put before the court which would make it inconsistent because of this everyone present it so if you know unfortunately that the lack of clarity with the verdict for either one of those is true which ones true i don't think any of us will be able to determine the basis of a verdict the verdict form and number four says specifically the value of earnings lost and the present cash value of earnings reasonably certain to be the evidence for the future damages it's legally inconsistent but the pestiferous i think give sense report was in two thousand and seventeen he testified in two thousand and nineteen so and he used the same figures so could we not tissue perhaps damage or injury and that he had recovered and that the recovery five hundred dollars was for that period that six week period in which he was recovering and was not able to do as many concerts and performance opinion well they could have it's related to the experts and the experts testimony is that correct for the for the night that the defense had their expert testified with regard to the injury is not right the injury not economics of their their their defense was no proximate cause the injury that we would not go to the crash the jury found proximate cause and that's that's the issue in the case if they find proximate cause that nexus the future damage n said you know that's possible but there is no way to do it ferde do six triple five hundred dollars from mr gibson's opinions now they could have determined that perhaps is methodology and calculating the last earnings was flawed could they not if they did that result would have to be zero coming i'm not sure that the jury sitting there especially with what the complexity of future earnings under the cell case which i cited to record five hundred dollars again it's just there's no basis and it's just picked out of thin air at me i think that was clearly there's evidence juries can't disregard it but it has to be some type of reasonable basis tight when there's absolutely no to the five hundred dollars and so could it jury have considered gibson's testimony reasonably happy considered a reasonably conclude that the plaintiff that never earn another issue that's with a serious background that i was precluded from getting and that door was close as he ever earned more than fifteen thousand dollars american oh but he was only here for summer months before he was t bone so without me being able to paint that picture for the jury and you is because he is an immigrant starting to get established in america the trap quite did not preclude you from asking a question that would go to getting a fair and impartial jury i mean you could but my recollection is asylum was not to be talked about the issue was the fact he's from syria is either going to cause any prejudice and it was the bar and that's what the judge said we can talk about and opens a can talk about it now a that says trial court show i p i instructions unless such instruction doesn't you know naturally i state the current state of the law so this jury instruction did all that whether you may proceed if you may please the court justices mr brown our i'm going to start and just kind of touch briefly on my some of the disagreements i have and in the brief reference to insurance there's a case called hamdan which was cited by plaintiff's counsel and in that case it says every it specifically says every reference to insurance is not necessarily the fibrosis i just don't see it and you know touch on these arguments from counsel and go to my own arguments but there they are spelled out in the brief but i just don't see the  these theories but his theory was based on and i think it's not a situation all or nothing with him and that's why i cited the instruction in my brief because you  know you can take a jury can take it as any other witness and i think there's there's some things to lean from and some things the jury would disregard clearly on this one mr seabury with regard to that is it your contention that the average full time musician in the chicago land area yes it is and you would admit that rafia was never  a full time musician in chicago land area therefore he's done this for the jury at that point the jury tunes him out and they're not going to work those kind of of now so then you they do to not then you have to go back and say ok well where where's the basis and there's all sense of the record number one he was a cab driver the year the accident he was a cab driver making i think seventy seven dollars i try not to misquote i think was seven certainly a basis in the record and that's why i say it's not all or nothing and the other thing that's important to gibbs i was able to get him to admit that you know his the that those were important figures and he said that those figures were a benchmark for him so and think and i'm sitting here back on the jury and i'm hearing oh ok so i can give that some weight the fact that you're telling me he may seventy seven hundred dollars during the course of the year of the accident you know maybe the math isn't the best my if you're going to go strictly on six you're dividing up seven thousand seven hundred dollars and it's obviously not a perfect formula but it's there's certainly a basis and it's not arbitrary fanciful you know off the off the chart good question i did sitting think about that i mean no i i don't think so i don't think so because again it's just  you know more the issue with him at least in my mind thinking about how well my whole point of cross examination if that makes any sense i thank you i'm sorry just this bridge's you you were what i want to ask you is i'm going to another areas can you tell us what are the reason for defense counsel's arguments regarding society and litigation and the ridiculous won't quite five million for this they were not trying to connect the dots between litigation and the cost of goods and services complete that it is the twelve of them collectively and using their collective common sense with an eye to truth in justice and my argument there is totally separate from  services if that's what you're asking and i'm not oh well that's what i'm asking because we had let emotion in this case i'm trying to get it what was what was their argument here for if it wasn't geared to violate the court's or r i see what you're saying it was geared towards the again really ok i think i understand now because that is not where i was going with that i was going with what i just initially said which is you know they don't make those decisions in a vacuum here's your evidence you have a clear in my opinion my doctor who is the only one who has looked at all the evidence so we're talking about truth right is the only one who truthfully and just as only you do all the evidence he came to a very clear conclusion that we're talking about we are talking about proximate cause or a soft tissue six weeks left shoulder and back injury so ho am plenty of shows remember plane of chose not to put in any medical bills so now you have jurors who are sitting back   talking about how it would affect the costs of goods or the costs of services i'm just talking about truth and justice that would be so were reft from what truly happened in this case that it would be unranked in justice i mean that's beyond every case that people ridicule and laugh about when you're on the street you know what about this case you know gotten a game a one million for this three hundred thousand and four that and i think jurors are you know they are humans they are their common sense they can talk about the verdict at some point later on so one might ask them what in the world how could you award one million five  dollars for this how is it justice and so my thinking during the whole closing argument as everyone has what's truth what's just not about goods and services if i mean if that makes any sense just don't know and if mr point but i just don't see the connection that they're making i understand your question now is they're trying to truthfully i think they're trying to pigeonhole though those motions  into what i'm arguing next why this canoe go case comes up because i just don't see any any relationship with this canoe go case where it's clearly you know insurance defense one o one you don't make those hundred thousand dollars policy now for this doctor you know that kind of thing and that's in my thinking i just don't go there you know i'm talking about what's just in the case and i just when you're to plaintiffs argued that case law did require the verdict forms to include separate lines for distinguishing between and future losses for each category of damages do you agree that that's what would well whether that was required but even if not required that would have made the fur tick form much clearer  i don't believe that it was required and i don't think it necessarily says that it would make the verdict form more clear in this situation where you have you know you have a bases in the evidence to award what's what appears to be clearly past lost wages i don't think any of the case law they cited i looked at all that he says there's nothing there that said it in this situation you have to give a separate verdict forms i'm sorry did it was or something else or i would touch upon you know there's just one other thing because i am running out of time and and any other questions you may have about that i am a little and this might over a few arguments i hope but this thing about the syrian issue and it was brought up just of just a little bit ago but i'm reading from the record page nine judge waller saying i have no problem with you getting into your client is from syria i have no problem saying they're from montana or greece just stay away from the political day away from the refugee stuff and that's exactly what is ruling what he was not precluded in any trap from going into  question regarding the request earlier conclusion you asked that the award include i think you said quote without limitation the cost on appeal what did you mean by that and is not usually done by separate appeal without limitations i'm not sure what you're asking here no i i would just say whatever costs are a likable job hearing or what was said that is different from when the issue comes up here important here when the issue comes up vote there are more dear players council is precluded from talking about syria gypsy's only get the facts of the case and see if you can talk about an opening so or do at the court thanks both parties for their arguments this morning the case will be taken under advisement and that disposition will be rendered in due course mr clerk you may close the case and terminate these proceedings thank you