responsibility for a multi million dollar budget for play just would have been put on notice therefore proving the cause of action when the st officer the company discovered the root of the cause of action not when a specific officer did as from joyce versus morgan stanley in other words the discovery r knowledge that they were wrongfully wrong and who did the wrong not necessarily correct so therefore the stash limitation didn't run until they got all of that information which was it may  sufficient number of invoices that were presented to you i'm going to miss that in the nature of this that he should have been one notice that there was fraud yes work but it's it's too late it can be done before the trial judge i filed one with the trial judge as well had a comment about her regarding the if please a court just a couple of things you ask a question about the bystanders report that was fully litigated in the trial court there was a response file us the defendant trash whether or not he admitted under all of his deposition with respect to the damages you have that bystanders report to those those transcripts in front of you any absolutely did in in the underlying trial court case it met the full amount of the damages that was that was then entered into by by judge my way in that in the trial court  the it's clear that in it's clear that there's there's two requirements you have to have knowledge of an injury have to have knowledge that the injury was wrongfully caused and in this case when the defendant raised the statue of limitations learned on may nd was that there was one invoice from an s monitor that he thought billed for services that were done by in house mayor brown employees that's what so all he knew at that point was that there was a billing discrepancy so at the you're being billed for a part that you know he didn't use it it doesn't mean that they expect contractors trying to defraud you it just means that there's a one billion discrepancy and you have to bring that up now to say check contractor did work for you for the past internal investigation and they're brown this this was a massive it was a classic kickback scheme but a massive kickback scheme it was controlled by mr trashed inside and the defendant trashed and it was and they would be paid so it was a classic kickback with the classic kickbacks you cannot answer your question all of the invoices for paul ok n s macho was investigated you know their their background who they work you know they drilled down people were interviewed but this was all after that may nd meeting when at most we're not saying that it occurred to me nd we're saying that that was we put that affidavit  because that was the st date that that that the appropriate person that mayor brown knew that there was some injury oh ok but the injury was was with respect to one invoice in it could have been a mistake or it could have been fraud but so everything was opened up there was an internal investigation and ultimately much after that you know the some to diligence required but but you're talking about you know a very short period of time we filed a complaint on may th you know fifty five years five years later this this meeting  always mean restitution doesn't always match the actual damages i don't know why but i would i would argue i would argue that the two are not synonymous you know that you know upon the amount of money you know that was you know that was stolen or the amount of money that's involved i know that so i know there's a lot of jockeying back and forth between prosecutors and defense attorneys about how much that was so there might have been busy discussion of the judge during the sentencing with respect to what that number was but there was an adjudication you know what the  he admits what the number was and in his deposition he admits under oath what the number was and legally you know i want to do the i want to do the fair thing here too but and and but we're we are a nation of