consolidated these two issues and so there are three issues on appeal and i'd like to speak to two of them one is in the middle option case which is under the new york wall the court denied hard court granted a motion to compel arbitration on the basis that under new york wall the claim that fraud part of a grand scheme of our contract is preempted by the f a a which is what we allege that's the ronald point the hacky case involved an arbitration provision at a new york choice of law and the court in that case said that when parties have an explicit new york choice of wall provision in the arbitration vision just the arbitration vision can be satisfied by showing the frog permuted the entire contract as opposed to the addition of the arbitration provision itself and the reason that's important is because in this case b t o five or six of their partners have been indicted have pled guilty on this case for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud and they've made all kinds of admissions which were in evidence in this case where they said that he sold his grievance for op product  roads discover what can but the arbitration provision itself says no discovery permitted lest you have a traitor allows it and our point is this the conscient be put in that position because at the time that  a o inserted that provision into the contract and had our client sign it they were aware of all of their froggie like to be they haven't missions the plea agreements that long before the cards are came along that they knew this was a complete crock and so is our position that contract terms it says we can't have discovered and so the issue is not really whether or not that they are very can allow it the issue is if we shouldn't be put in the position of having a situation where b t o knows of all the admitted before before we entered our consulting agreement that they put our treasure written in there that limits our ability to prove our case that lose their exposure and so that's why we think that end in the way the court truck or look at these matters is it did not look at the terms and the context of the entire transaction in the context of the consulting agreement and the people that have been indicted he worked with and were his boss and this is all pled in our case in detail in the complaints about one hundred fifty pages said you can sever that component out but we we assert that because of all the admissions with rock because of all of the facts that have been uncontroverted that we give all we have proven are a possible case which will require showing that in this case at this point that they are having sophistication for a valid tax investment and that's why they pay hundreds of millions of dollars over the last ten years so that they can get their advice that be looking to apply the normal law under normal circumstances when we have the big guys convicted tax schemes and guilty pleas of fraud can allow discovery which is the case with any arbitration the courts you know illinois u s supreme court gilmer have said repeatedly that the fact that discovery is somewhat more limited in arbitration and needs litigation is not grounds for denying arbitration among other matters you don't have the same rules of evidence in arbitration she don't need now so i don't know if you're familiar with this court's history but this court and i personally i think my colleagues the perk of several positions over the last fifty years that every i think every single effort of someone who wanted to avoid an arbitration country grows of you signed up for work too bad she suddenly discovering there's no due process where you know that's what  result of the scheme that the people have now put guilty to in federal court in other words the pipeline is such but i stand corrected so but i guess the question a little bit differently yes sure i will confess that i am no expert on contract law right but it seems to me that a contract is defined by the meaning of the lives on a particular subject so that if the corresponding duties the obligations if a contract rule which is a bedrock corporation law both dealt with an issue of the order of alteration versus litigation the screen courts simply said that there was a rule that prevented enforceability of arbitration contracts they would not apply  if the court uses several that's probably in the courts right but that's again the courts have said time and time and time again that restriction of punitive damages is not a reason for finding an arbitration vision be unconscionable and in fact  for this purpose in his briefs is the first time i'm hearing of it today he said it for another proposition but we've said in our priest numerous cases saying that you are in fact allowed to stray damage from her patient creation they're free to convince  say i'm a real sophisticated businessman worth arabs through engineering of automobiles and stuff i know from nothing about tax law which you know i don't know if it's true of this case but certainly in some other cases like mine would be true and i could  it's something with doesn't strike me as good a possibility to believe from with this comes your description of mr khan is the sophisticated businessman who would understand sexual you know god or absolutely i'm not saying that he would understand pax saw i'm and that's what you know the cons and they signed up for when they signed up for five different arbitrary means of course of five years each time knowing that they just lost money in their past tax investment you know for them to say now that they're trying to get out of these arbitration hearings i think it's troubling to me and i think that you're i should take very seriously the fact that he has cited zero authority no case entire country entire judicial system of this of this land no cases ever found the exception i was trying to find and i think lawyers yet not disclosure agreement that did not allow him to speak to anyone about the transaction so had he done that i guess you'd have been sued for that second of all your order which is very troubling to the position that they're not get a break on this arbitration provision we have in the truck how impossible it is in light of the evidence which the court is supposed to look at as to why the discovery limitations  discovered well you're allowed to discuss sever those as well the cases are clear on that but our position is that you take those two limitations and you look at all the other  we're going to get three arbitrators that are or are not judges you want to be and so we think the whole arbitration provision is unconscionable i will focus on the one thing that i think i mean you clear and that is video continues to say that the policy here is if they were to arbitration arbitration arbitration that is incorrect the ball case in the hackett case u s supreme court case both impacted say that the a policy is to put contracts on equal footing as other contracts and to poor fish the terms of those contracts as written not favoring arbitration over any other over court so of course as you  of the arbitration mission itself but i will say that they had a responsibility to contradict our evidence and they didn't and under the law if there is a dispute on what evidence the court truck or supposed to have a hearing to determine if in fact