assuming that this unsigned nine caught you will that originally was filed blank then came in with a can form copy and there's no actual sign count being existence assuming that this would be admissible by the affidavits of the witnesses we still the last operation a will was ever physically torn up or removed from the safe or was there to begin with there's no facts as to what will whether it was a copy of anything saying what was originally in the senate so what our position is in order  anybody to get to the point where this is the will that was allegedly stolen they need to be some sort of punishment was there in the st place one of the standards of execution is well follow the procedures of the originals who were present the attorney's office where they were copies made th so now four years passes from when it's stolen and it is his will the only existing is not even copies and he's not going taking action so we believe those type of factors would be things that would come up in a going through hearing as rebutting a presumption that we never normal would mcquade's double hearsay and so everything needs to be proved and him i think it's a chicken and the egg without knowing it that purported october st will was in the safe how can you get to any of these others in order for his taking the coming who repeatedly made you will see acted in accordance i mean he knew you could he knew this will was stolen allegedly by this fact basis and he took four years and plenty of opportunity to amend it to create a new one to do whatever when he knew it was going and he took no the foundation in the will referenced in the police report is that we'll buy something that says he got from point a when he left the office to the save there's nothing that connects the two that's a huge leap when we know there's going to multiple wills execute and there's no identifying information so i believe that based on ak that's where our request for summary judgment could coming is if you're going to take those things and say look i can see that you have no point b to good for me to see well then we are entitled to summary judgment because there's no way they can prove or rebut the presumption apologize because after reading judge shown by means of order and then reading my brief i should have just said in my brief one said judge show minds work he addresses single spaced word he spent more time probably writing that order that we did in our brief we should've just had you read or to be honest so let's address as i hear it i hear three different one is that there were some doesn't make any sense and if you look at the record and compare it to the argument it's all speculation he's asked what could have been this or might have been that apparently records or excuse me in fact in the records to support the speculation is not a reasonable inference from the pack and that's all they're doing the speculating so what do you know for sure so you assume if there is a presumption because you can't find the will does shown by and wrote about the so either way you're going to go with he wasn't in his last and last in his possession so there is no presumption or if it was last in his in his possession and you find a presumption that all we have to do is show that there while it doesn't take much of an argument or a very skilled lawyer point out the fact that if that will was stolen and he reported it stolen there's no intent to revoke so there can't be a revocation and that's the argument that's the presumption that we're looking for the presumption of he's asking for is for you to presume because we can't find it it must the venerable and here there's clear evidence to the contrary there's clear evidence that it was stolen considered it wouldn't change the outcome and what's in that that shortly after he starts the mr frakes is ill he seriously ill becomes ill and eventually passed away so if we're going to speculate on it maybe was so sick maybe in the original mission but somewhere in there he talks about how when his daughter that passed away when his daughter passed away he had made financial arrangements for the objectors and that's and then nd the nd level was is a picture according to counsel is the statement of the gentleman himself mr franks of self that my will was stolen but think about it do we care whether the will was stolen as much as we care about what his state of mind was this statement is not offered to prove that the will was stolen so much as it's offered to prove that his state of mind was the thing was stolen and i didn't revoke it and on top of that you also have the two hundred and thirty three which says statements with respect to the will of the gives you a list one of those is revocation this is clearly a statement that relates to revocation i didn't book it so it's accepted under thirty three and it's also offered for the purpose of his state of mind his lack of intent to revoke the will so that clears both both levels there is no hearsay that is and that's the creepy point i think in response to your question is that his state of mind was i did not intend to provoke this well i don't think there's any evidence they have not presented any facts to draw that issue into an unc the st thing i'd like to see is counsel heap saying that it's clear from the records what he didn't put out there but there's nothing clear as to what transpired after that the seed left the attorney's office with his will so when we get to that question of invoking the presumption was the executed you leave with it we know that everything else after that is complete speculation we have no facts to say where that will went maybe you could go on vacation that's a great point you never came back and that's why it's gone we don't know any of that that's why the presumption is there because they have the opponents to the will have to prove what happened something that doesn't exist is an impossible task so the idea is look if it's not there you've got to prove why it's now and again that they would keep going back that itself has to be predicated on a pound foundation that that will that is the same will and there's nothing in the record in there never will be what happens when he left he could have thrown in the car which for all we know we don't know and that's the idea the the other po different ways the case law says you can prove it up but we think it that same reluctance to do anything or are not on doing anything that for years would be weighed in that direction rebutting the presumption because again he acted on multiple occasions to create new wills he acted quickly a few doing something so we know that he knew the process and was familiar with going to will them so what we're saying is that factor that kind of waiver issue comes into play when they're trying to rebut it it's a factor to go against in rebuttal and saying will of course he dead the other one to testify is yes when we left the tourney's office we went home we placed our wills in the safe you can have evidence of what happened to it oh yeah he took this one went home he did that so again in again his normal routine of executing wells were probably end up in the safe i would imagine the last one had a better chance because it was in the normal course of how he had done the previous one was done and the chinese office with copies being made so both again with all of the nation all we know is the