well be arguing  what's wrong about the conclusion he reached well i think based on the after judge i don't know that there was at this taken of the composition of the congregation before and after this we often deny based upon the property the building their accounts etc on the line in litigation in order to effect that change so it seems to me that in light of their willingness to risk so much it's difficult to conceive of how these two  nominations are the same as  of that dissolution that agreement can be had can be construed as just finding those two parties as between themselves fate will not contest the big question given to an entity named first presbyterian church after a certain date great work as presbyterian would not contest of bequest given to first presbyterian church prior to a certain day but that agreement was between those two parties as to whether or not they would contest the the back box between themselves i don't think that agreement can bind a third party that was not a party to if the court were to conceive of the agreements subsequent to the determination of dissolution as acknowledging that in fact no dissolution occurred and that sort of interpretation kind of if we were to interpret the subsequent decisions as meaning that the church wasn't actually dissolved i don't see how we're printing any deference to the presbyterian decision instead of dismissal in favor of dissolution bach in contrast were a decision doesn't involve internal church doctrine policy practice those decisions are subject to review by the courts with  day that the court that has to move on to determine what this reynolds intact was based position has always been here piers the trial court's holding was thank her presbyterian church was never dissolved it merely changed his name and our position to the contrary that first presbyterian church we don't know if she attended that church prior to her disability we don't know if she asked the attorney for acting the well to do so give her an idea what's a good church to give money to we don't know if you like the bil wrote her will would suddenly become the object is that right that's correct ok and we have to conclude that by god if only she did know the church was going to change the structure that's what she would want to that she intended to leave the right to judge others other than the next camp however because we don't know that because she wasn't competent at that time corporation known as first presbyterian church we see only what the record also shows though is you had sex that this solution was not a dissolution out of existence and in fact the dissolution itself was made in the context of the settlement agreement that specifically provided the first president here in church when  seeds that it was just a matter of corporate need change and in addition to the settlement agreement itself which specifically references first presbyterian church in only religious corporation we corp and also bill sale for any property that was on the church premises and our position has been all along if there was an effort or an intent to dissolve the church out of existence the presbytery would have no business we're claiming anything to a defunct corporation but even beyond that the parties the presbytery and the religious corporation just so there would be no confusion in the future and an issue like this entered into a separate agreement this agreement regarding gifts and and they specifically agreed that for bills that had been made prior to this change in name that faith presbyterian would be entitled to receive those gifts even even beyond the name change i guess what the cream actually provides is that until there is a new first presbyterian church associated with the pres ery in quincy illinois faith presbyterian continue to receive even those yes that are made out to the first presbyterian church of once so there is absolutely no happened whether the parties were notice that this was going to be hearing on the merits and whether the objectors had a full opportunity presenting the evidence they wish to your position that's what happened we believe that they it there's really no question title but to get this in front or and the way it actually worked its way through the process there was no question here and you know take issue with this guy continue to see the point that i made some comment one fifty seven of the objectors appendix the court said you had evidence you want to present today or just take it on the documents and motions and arguments and i answer the court's question here are the only questions we had at least today that we intended resentful of documents that have been submitted and the court then continues on the next page all right is there any challenge to the authenticity of the documents that are attached to the various pleadings mr george lewis answered no mr tom leaper answer no your honor and i then said we have no objection to that either if in a case where we're talking about on authenticity of documents clearly this is a hearing on the merits and when you look at the request for with leaf that the objectors had throughout these proceedings their their position was never along the lines of  you know we need to take some discoveries we need to address certain points it was always we asked the court to rule in our favor and find that the it lapsed that was always their position the other point is the court asked counsel about whether this could have been raised in the motion to reconsider and in fact there was a motion to reconsider that was filed by the objectives that we then briefed again and argued the second time w the reason their motion they basically just said the court is wrong the court erred they didn't say it was your request to preserve any additional evidence surgeries there was not no indication that there was a question fact there was no indication thousand and seven as you know our congregation is the oldest congregation the city of quincy illinois dating back one hundred sixty seven years and actually one hundred seventy seven years when with what is now first union united congregational church evidence of the congregation it was the same it has always been the same this was not a situation in which the presbyterian booted out the members of this church this was a situation in which he congregation declared its independence from the presbyterian and went on to enter into later that all this settlement movement that specifically  contemplated that illinois religious corporation known as the first presbyterian church when c would survive with the name change that's exactly what happened that was the evidence that was presented this point about  and the idea that somehow the court found to defer to the action of the president here that argument actually supports the church's position in this case because if we're going to defer to the action of the presbytery we find her dad first presbyterian church of one c survive it survive after this dissolution that all there skewed as i indicated that the membership of the church declared its independence from mr terry and that's what led them to this in november of two thousand and eight the congregation remain the same it way is there any evidence of this record that he thinks like that happened here there certainly is in the uk that's what led them to this whole chain and that's what i spars the numbers i think my understanding was th was a dispute between the congregation and it's what should i say it's administrative body as opposed to within the congregation just is that as obviously you know the residue of that will what we know about that it was number one to a charity and number two that charity having to be your church is located twenty fourth in m oh with respect to the the substance here it kind of struck me last night when i was reviewing all the information normally when someone is here arguing a case and you have some argued ambiguity you've got a document and you've got one side over here that was on one side of the case you've got one party over here that was on the other side and they disagree with the interpretation in this case all of the documentary evidence there's there's two parties it's the press to carry and it's originally the first presbyterian church which change its name to faith presbyterian church those are the two entities that the felt the documents and there's in addition to that if that doesn't settle the issue if we've got the affidavit name change and the porters been inquiring about the parties who still attend church i think it's at least interesting that the affidavit the name court has been asking about why shouldn't just go back for another hearing and i'd like to briefly look at the settlement agreement that's been discussed back in two thousand and seven paragraph inquiry with regard to whether or not there were any members or any evidence in the record reflecting that there is any members that did not want to to move on page eight thirty  to the evangelical presbyterian church and that members of the first presbyterian church of quincy who wish to remain affiliated with the presbyterian church usa will have their membership retain there really wouldn't be much purpose to put in that provision and if there reason i asked you what i just did is i want to make sure that my understanding is correct that essentially this is an argument of never heard with respect to the title of the motion well not only that but a wee bit will put out more evidence of there's  the opposition will go with that there is any other evidence than than what they are and the decision to does all the church is controlling once that church is dissolved the get should lapse and then pass was the only point i would make this thing closing is that regardless of whether the motion to dismiss argument goes anywhere we're still there the course decision with regard to this solution