to coke morning here please the court morning my name is patrick cook i represent the oh that's that's your choice i suppose but the statute of limitations for contract is an awful lot longer than the structural limitations for fraud it is but with contract damages as you know judge easterbrook if there was just a breach of contract here and that was what was in play these debts would have been discharged by now you know there is a fraud exception to destroy you may not appreciate that you can bring a claim on a contract and then opposed just charge on the ground that the and for purposes of accepting these claims from from discharging having judgment entered in connection with the same all of the fraud is the incident you have in country just don't understand the way the bankruptcy process exception works but you have made your choice you fraud it accepting these claims from from dish arch based on five twenty three a two way but it is incident incident two and on the contract and multiple contradiction to which the services entered bankruptcy court focused appropriately at the time the chicago loans were made but you can find the window through which he was evaluating the intent to deceive very narrowly he looked only at the notes himself in fact he indicated in his own opinion that the only evidence dating back to the time of the chicago loans are the notes let's just not true there was conduct before the notes that should have been taken into consideration there were the notes themselves they should have been more carefully evaluated and the conduct after supper after the chicago loans all of which revealed the state of mind in intent to deceive by colossal at the time he entered into these loan arrangements these investment arrangements with all the syracuse's we know that because at least two of the notes the eddy notes and these are goose unknowns identified the wrong lender the wrong construction loan lender the wrong sixteen of each of the loan agreements he had no intentions we didn't care what lender appeared in the loan agreements and we know that because at some point in and as part of goldman were involved the problem is no one told roberts or who said that c g development group doesn't appear anywhere in the notes they were given to also know that glasser did not intend to pay these loans out and retire the surrogacy debts after paying the forced mortgages because he started developing transfer the transfer of units that eventually occur from waveland and very to our man investments were not the result of sluggish sales sales sales in fact at the time this transfer e l c was created it was not possible for collapse or anyone else for that matter to know how sluggish the sales might be how quickly the sales might go whether there would be any sales at all yet before he even started the conversion project in twelve ten wavel and the reasons raised in the british suggesting that he really did intend well the bankruptcy judge said that the only evidence of falsity was cause of her to follow through on this promise and this was insufficient to prove that there was a false part there were actually express fragile representations in the netherlands regarding the actual construction land as for these particular conversion projects so that was glossed over entirely by the the bankruptcy court beyond that subsequent conduct and conduct before i mean would that be fraud if he if when he made the deal with the syria group says he intended to you know carried out an honest fashion and then later later there are developments they can't and he can't do it and so on i wouldn't be growing no but in this case it is because if it reflects back to the debtor state of mind mean by reflects well the subsequent conduct was all part of the bigger scheme that was  a indicated earlier began to unfold even before roberts or abuse allowed any monies to transferee elysees were beginning to be formed before the the conversion project walt and waveland in particular even began so he had these yes so work six forty three bearing or thirteen hundred eighty or twenty eight zero one seminary there's no evidence of record indicating as much they've mortgaged these properties in new for the purposes of getting more capital for additional projects in which you are involved and nothing to do with the seven telephone conversation with this daughter and that wasn't the case when the conversation the poorly occurred he went to collide so as he had been doing for two plus years asking inquiring about the status of loans they were already in default for more than two years now and glad to provide  to any project in july two thousand something that said these are individual one off projects that's all and so if if he learned it through that tell the conversation that the last of the eighty units had been sold in the statue limitations arguably may have began to run as to writer and she's kind of his right hand man she a she's not a man but write him something right hand assistant yeah yeah sure why wouldn't serve goods and not being in finance or construction or a thing like the bankruptcy bankruptcy courts decision as well as to the district court opinion and that that conversation is weird the daughter told told her father that the last unit in eddie had not been well it doesn't extinguish collateralised debt but what the bankruptcy courts point was that that there had been what was key to the to the representation her father the to last unit in anything and you know why didn't she explained to him what the significance of that is because i believe i believe the significance and what judge and what judge we'd often wanted was significant how is he supposed to know what the significance of colossus have any maybe that's a good thing colossal or so of this last property nominee has a lot of money well these were very on the sale these were different borrowing l money is now what the money comes from and he knows that the end he's got a store or working for a collage you'd think he'd think sarah goosen would think well look i'm safe so i have my daughter working for this guy if he if he if he's not going to repay me or something she'll she'll tell me about but there are her testimony a transcript of  and he said he was repeatedly asked the question of whether or not his daughter had informed him of of certain things and he repeatedly said no i didn't deal with my daughter on these things i dealt with mr and i don't know what's or gooses of the girl well and again i think that the the representation here is the trigger for the doctor to have made an investigation because the notes have been unpa so your doctor he doesn't know anything about construction industry and finance he's got his daughter working for the guy who was in the money it's not if she doesn't tell him anything it's not a question of whether he's attacked or iran or it's a question of what a reasonable person i don't agree with that suppose you have an unreasonable person you deceive the spur as you say to some dope you say look don't worry about this the statute of limitations is fifty years and this limitations in decisive and in my case i believe it is your honor i believe that all that doesn't make any sense because that's because you can certainly the fraud a person the deceiving him as to what the statute of limitations is you tell a person who doesn't know better the statue imitation is his ex and it's really a tenth of x you can plead the statute i mean can plead it but it's not going to be effective because you've defrauded this you know the sucker right but but nobody did but nobody told dr cyril who's a what that what what the statute of limitations was this case  what what the and that makes it better the first you know the point do not even know what a stash limitations the point is it's not a subjective test the discovery rule really lucky you're wrong because if you have someone who deceives another person about the statue of limitations person has no legal sophistication that's a form of fraud but there was no evidence here that anybody deceived doctors i don't understand the daughter's role  and i don't think it was adequately explored well i think that the court's decision was was based on the fact that there was no misrepresentation there was no intent to deceive at the time these loans were made there was no plan in place to was no did it extinguish b l l seized at callao so said testified that he always recognize that his development company or he had an obligation to pay these debts well it would have been easier to pay them if he hadn't gotten rid of the i don't know that's what he did well but the question here the question is did he intend to do so when the loans were made because they actually it would be the essence of form what was there a planet only understand that here there is there has to fide he probably was thinking of this all the time it's a scheme there isn't there was nothing nothing that show that he had done this in the past there was no evidence to show that such a scheme existed when he originally  as a very nave response that's that's actually finding of the bankruptcy court didn't get it that's and and there was simply no showing that there was this created the debt in order to be the actual fraud that conduct has to create the debt that didn't create the debt see what difference that makes still for aught but fraud your position that the fraud bar in five twenty three a two a applies only when there are false statements statements false or that i mean yes i believe that the state  scheme that was in place at the time that these laws were but that would have been an interesting question to explore had anybody bothered to  you directly that this is not an action premised on breach of contract to the extent that it was confined to to contract law argument in the court of appeals is a little late to change your tune about that and just to judge my point as the  i was clear about what i was asking and i apologize for my no no you don't apologize to me i think you need to apologize to your clients tha