you refused to receive it i think we have a wide leeway i'd like to move the admission of my locklear jennifer robinson jennifer i think you're supposed to stand she's a lawyer in good standing state california and has served me and the entire court stream my well mr as we often do with our law clerks but at least she'll be a member of our bar if you accept my underlying matter is simply hard for contesting a charge that charges pursuant to the previous court for a case now must be protested pursuant to the protest mechanism and then which have denied protest avenue into the c i t would be under what we call the fifteen eighty one ager stiction however our case is different in that what we have is the after discovered claim situation where the th claims were discovered after the protest period had expired mr van arnim is that actually correct i got the impression that the trial court was saying you had notice of the arrest of the sunline personnel well before the period even started and the trial court seemed to feel that you had some me here to pursue that information why i think the trial court had the benefit of hindsight and they were able to look at this case and say yes herford you did discover your claims and had you done earlier you would have discovered them earlier however we have to change the vantage point here the not the issue shouldn't be looking back we need to put ourselves in the situation of hard for what did they know at this time and did that give them reason to believe that they they were going to to get the schenn file and review  claims that they could raise relating to the entries same products from the same country same kind of a unique product i mean to meet you know why you cannot a very common product it i don't know how common or not it is your honor but the fact remains that once we reviewed the shun file what do we determine by doing that will we determine that the hartford had no little financial stake in any the bar or district zachery what the circumstances were let's assume hypothetically that that's not enough to trigger the as it was a totally unrelated transaction  ey have to pay right and it wasn't until october of that same year that hartford got around to florida and tapes which they'd already heard about that maybe having conversation between the outside counsel and this unrelated customs broker consist of the customs broker telling the outside counsel that the customs broker had heard that two employees of sunline business corporations had been arrested for filing false invoices relating to customs entries that was a sum total what was communicated to mr shapiro notice in their communication was there anything told to him that would imply that the  communication and what eventually occurred what without any nexus why do you get the sham filed later if you get some additional information that motivates you to undertake your study well not sure why they proceeded to get the shen file is perhaps if there was some doing that motivated you to give it later the trial court would be saying why didn't that motivation come in an earlier point but in th nothing on the record going into that motivation as to why they went to get the file open the fact that they had heard about it they wanted and the reason they were getting the file was not simply to look through the file to see if they could discover the facts establishing claims that they were going to make in the hugh by entry relating to this material misrepresentation in the release of collateral what they were growing was in charge checking the file the see if in fact they had a business stake in the underlying transactions in the  a reason we diligent plaintiffs would have discovered the facts that constitute its claim so in now back on that reasonably diligent point may sixth you hear of the arrest of this online person no you don't request that violent till mid october that's correct why the months of difference there well let's first look at what happen may sixth there had been no demand made against hard for for the later yes june twenty second and so then it thereafter why then is that october seventh when you finally get around this thing let's look into this sunline case but still even on june second there was nothing there it was with it was with sunlight there the principle of war with the the period for protest expired from september yes i'm still confused as to why you even undertake the investigation weeks later well simply so that they could so they can learn to see if there was any business activity that they had bonded involved in the shan matter not just the hugh by entries harsh response i was may have done that before their protests period expired because at that point in time they didn't realise that they had a claim to to protest member the claim that they discovered by these two nuggets that are buried deep in this file totally unrelated to to the hugh boy entries there's nothing in that letter in the agent's report which mentions issue for sun on and the response that for her for no reason to pause to think that there was some order issue that would it have impacted hard for relationship with we have sun wind and  to hartford to a big company it's got a lot of things going on and somebody says something at a party in the investigation that's unrelated to any of their business on this particular but that's the facts says the court has just stated them are actually more complex or complicated than just that skeletal first conversation and this is what happened hart herd hears  does again using outside counsel cracked and it doesn't pay the demand ok at that point you have a legitimate complaint at the star or start thinking but that's wait and then bit well we're only dealing with i think about a month anyway then you have a ninety day period of time during which type heard decides not to pay the demand so obviously hard heard thinks that there's something wrong with  why why would we think that i'm i'm a little bit puzzled as to what would really dry or investigate here at all the only real connection is that it's different in borders what would cause them to realize there's a connection well when harper what hartford learns in may is not just that there is general fried  and crawfish tell me from china it's that there's fried on the part of sunline who hartford insurers so it's the very same subject merchandise and the same party the same financial relationship between hartford and the defendant but officers as often happens with importers that that's really just a couple of people who organize to why would they be required as the court seems to require them to undertake an investigation when there's nothing leaves a rest to their employer well they're not required to do anything and i think the question is whether somebody in their position was there no live trees problem well it's hard for it is cracked that it claim did not accrue until after the contest period expired and obviously we don't agree with that but if they are correct some reason the court of international trade insists on calling it twelve o five which confuses everybody will use your code i think the and this gets into the unusual interplay between a and i i think they stated clearly but i think if anything the facts on the well that's that's a possibility and it's not something that we that we've raised to the trial court and i think if it ever got to the merits we would certainly make the argument that that customs wouldn't have had any obligation to notify heard of any kind of knowledge that it may have had for something that was certain i believe she said that in may two thousand and five when hard for to learn that these individuals who work for someone had been arrested that also that some rot that harper had discovered fraud on behalf of sunline that's just not the case that didn't occur and back again in may of two thousand and five all that was communicated to harper's attorney was the information that two individuals had been arrested for using false and voices and again back then there had been no demand made on the hugh bait there being no reason at that point in time to say gosh we got to go investigate this because of the hu by the government prior to when the hugh bain trees bonds were executed so so in light of all this i think that the record before the court establishes that when  look at what a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have known knowing what heard from me prior to the expiration of the protest period that with those facts would be no reason for it to construe to believe that if it ran out in review the show file it would discover these these these facts supporting claims for material misrepresentation and release of collateral based on based on the simple knowledge that two individuals