andersen th district case the burden is on them to prove to prove that now at trial the only evidence they had was the testimony of  michael mclaughlin that he did not know the claimant had no means to ascertain the claim and that he did all he could and to do so reasonably that evidence would be sufficient if there were no evidence that indicated otherwise but here there was evidence to the contrary there are a couple of documents from a virginia court case in which  t against this likelihood we only have michael's uncorroborated testimony that john kept records and that he didn't see any such document among those records secondly there's an order allowing the mr bywater was the same as the court order as mr tenney points out in his brief but i think it's pretty likely that this is the only document this trip by would the water would have sent at th time he was withdrawn i think it's likely we're talking about what's likely what's not likely i think it's likely this was a court order that was sent there was no return according to mr by water i that a request to admit the executor had received a mailing for mr vidal i believe it was i don't have that right before me at this moment well that language from andersen i believe is an example and it's a general example of what the ministry to do looking generally for records of possible manifest weight standard from like i say and i believe there are a lot of other factors that impinge on his credibility the fact that he isn't interested witnesses that he has a stake in the house he stands to we have to the trial court the executor was unreasonable no reasonable person what's our basement yes sir that's what i'm arguing just just right now when you see these documents that they state that there was a counter claim both of these documents was to have so the possibility the likelihood that two documents were not found five days before his death is that was not expected to how likely is it he didn't keep a copy of that for someone for his administrator is to find also in light of mr by water his testimony that he had withdrawn the order was entered and you would expect him to send in our copies order of a draw to his to mr mclaughlin and he deposed that he did that how likely is that document was not found even after it was mailed to the mailbox in illinois that the administrators were checking it just it just seems incredible that two thirds of documents were not well i don't think he could have done anything if he didn't have these documents that's what i'm relying on i would expect him to go through all fifty states all the probate courts and and all of the know all the cases everywhere to examine the see if there were any claims that i think is going too far that would be not reasonable that my argument is that we do have these documents and evidence and so his testimony standing alone that's not good enough shall continue to tell you did you see did ask about the deemed admission and i think that it was by operation of life think there's a question whether the trial court properly considered this to be a deemed admission to my position is that the court was not justified in saying michael's testimony overcame that request to admit that mission and i don't i did not waive my the admission by my cross examination because its purpose was not to prove up what michael had deemed that to compete his credibility and the cases mr tenney cited in his reply i think only go to shows about what is needed to get from an evidence admission to a judicial admission but or a request to admit and that is untimely that  admitted because from timely that bypasses all that north america becomes a judicial admission but again my main argument is that the evidence contradicting michael's testimony puts his testimony into doubt and i think this court has to decide what most likely happened and i think the trial court had to do that too and that the trial court dropped the ball on e think the court should keep in mind the objective nature of these tatis documentary evidence as opposed to the subjective nature of michael icons testimony  fact he could say whatever he wanted and nobody could really question in the fact that he was such an interested witness he had thousands hundreds of one thousand dollars at stake the standard of proof is preponderance michael mclaughlin testified given the nature of these documents when no one was signed the motion to extend was signed and the fact that we have an attorney who has nothing to gain by misrepresenting the truth understand the reasonably hester tenable requirement that is laid out by statute at the end of his motion to reconsider ruling he said that even if he did not see it meaning michael you have he did not see it by water mailing from the virginia court order that by itself is enough to put off when i noticed the pensioner once might be a creditor documents show national alliance has a counter claim on both of them if mr mclaughlin michael mclaughlin looked at these are he would have been alerted there's a possible claim here and it would have been easy to which i'm assuming he did based on this evidence i think there's no question that he should have been investigated the question really is what's the likelihood likelihood d he saw these documents a says he didn't know i think the fact that jack spence and saw his demeanor in the courtroom here is less weight in this case because of the nature of the objective evidence against him and because of the interested nature of this with d hundreds of thousands of dollars he stands to be free of any liability for forever if he just says i didn't see any and he is subject to mo punishment nobody can really question that i just asked the court to say to see what is more likely one or the other or both of these are documents that he sought some time and should have given actually noticed national alliance or somehow he didn't see it i just think it's more likely than not that he saw them and either didn't recognize the significance of them and didn't use reasonable diligence or he did recognize them and just chose to ignore them in the hope that he would escape liability for this  so his brothers glasgow administrators one or both of them contacted the farm industry dealers and business people that they knew their brother did business with and discovered some some debts owed a mission to those efforts they went through a bunch of admittedly disorganized records i think farmers are notorious maybe for not being a great record keepers they keep a lot of them in their trucks and glove box as was the case with mr john mclaughlin but sorting through records scattered about the floor of john's house and in the national alliance as creditors they didn't they didn't receive anything or if they did they didn't understand its significance  testimony was very clear on several occasions he had no knowledge of a claim of national alliance and arguably i don't know that the analysis before this court needs to go any farther because they're forgiven for that so yeah argument that says that our counsel will they be forgiven if they found it but as you said did not understand the significance report not sure which report that is the focus should not be on the actual knowledge of the claim by the executive directors nor upon what she said ject of lee understood legal documents to mean had she looked for them and discovered them period rather the focus is on the efforts expended by the executive acts in attempting to discover claims against well i think we need to clarify what we're talking about by water letter the request to admit said i have this and trying to see if a mailing admit that you received a mailing from i have it right here this is on page four of our our brief the request is i received a mailing from douglas a bywater correct that's not how the i'm looking at the where we re cited that d the specific requests in our brief from page four it doesn't say anything about a lawyer in doesn't appear to me that it was they was literally i mean it's true that mr by wire i was or was john acosta's lawyer but i don't see in the in the request himself that we we make several arguments in our brief about the request to admit first of all as i've already addressed to clarify we did not admit receipt of the order just a mailing question no longer a judicial mission it was a response we say we say several n r r a prefix sixteen north shore community bank versus sheffield wellington don't i don't remember the specifics of those rare thank you we also making reference to some arguments that we have in the brief about that significant because it assumes that the german government would have kept a copy of what he filed well judging by his other record keeping it is quite unlikely that he that he would have done that in any event even if even got a copy of the order if he didn't understand it because he didn't he didn't appreciate being a lay person what a counterclaim was or if he didn't see reference to counterclaim where it appeared in the body of a document standpoint if the if the administrators got that order and didn't understand that there's still not they're still not responsible for that let's say so leans on its effort let me ask this question think i think it does i think it does reflect john the deceiving had some contact with people in virginia thank you so i i just maybe not very artfully but i just went through a scenario of what i would call a best case scenario for the  it if the administrators never got a copy of the order then there would be no basis on which they should have pursued any investigation i think mr thomas is argument is that what you saw the order you should have seen the wor well i wish my client did more to be frank with you but he didn't have the fact that he didn't is not relevant the fact is he was not given factual notice he was entitled to actual notice if the claim