been reading and i understand you tell me what the acts of your client were prior to the time it's actually dropped it is explained by his actions he seemed to disclaim the whole partnership aspects of this relationship until it came time to defend th effect i have a business proposal for you i want to start of a business between yourself and myself purchased about so at this point there was no vessel at all in the in the and i think that also sort of black letter law that a court has jurisdiction to determine interesting action which means that the court's ruling in amman they had jurisdiction to determine whether or not this was a partnership or an employee relationship so you however before he left the business he took a four thousand dollars drop of peter pan account which was a business account so he acknowledged that he had absolutely no authorization to do that other than the owner of the vessel and so he decided he was going to leave the partnership and then he takes four thousand dollars that he says he used specifically for his own personal benefit he thought that was what he was zero for wages in this matter so he took that amount of money then he left the business now if in fact this was simply an employer in four year relationship and what was the justification for taking that money the only authority that he had related back to the whole beginning of this venture and april twenty second three days before this supposed employment so we had a partnership forming in our alaska l it doesn't have to be writing our national law recognizes or of partnerships these two decided between themselves we're going to form a partnership well i i'll go there and then i go to work yes but there was we don't have to look at well i think that that conclusion he did make the i think here's his justification for not finding a partnership was that there was nothing in writing and i think i already i thought he was talking about the facts o and this is then them established eight thirty eight person at sixty two percent split and also says if that's the wages they're only going to be brought about providing this profit in providing and after after this profit after you take out  relationship there are obviously an expectation of wages the more importantly is that we have this april twenty fifth contract that was a year before this break up during the off season the best it was put into drugstores both parties contributed without any obviously wasn't there was no employer my contract controlling this because it had nothing to do with the speech both parties contributed to fixing it the best on both parties contribute to preparing the trade with last he signed that he knew that he was signing as a sole proprietor for the r t one venture and so there's not any other employees on the of the arch one who are signing purchased now where's the money coming from the business i mean he doesn't exist until they buy the book where's the money coming from going to this i believe i believe that he didn't have to he didn't have to put up any money for the i've sailed and do all this stuff but mr swenson could iraq what i can contribute some money to this you can contribute experience so what we have is that it's truly a conflict between how this contract how this contract liability corporation to protect the interest of the vessel and mr swan i missed ok ok ok mr rock was going to be legally on the separate limited liability corporation when he got his masters when they come in with a complaint saying that they are saying that on paper but never in the complaint they filed under they they were questioned alaska's waves in our attack remedies so here is the money because you know it my name is shane crew and i represent south rockwell the court is very familiar with facts it's pretty it's obvious when i was preparing for today i wasn't exactly sure what my approach would be swenson the opportunity in a full trial to convince and put on evidence that apparently that there was some sort of partnership agreement that there was a partnership and therefore there was no jurisdiction after a full trial after two days after hearing all the employed with reference and i believe that there was a reference in one of the documents i don't know about it and i was looking for it has a question came up whether there was a reference to the name of the bastille no that's trial from mr rockwell and also i believe testimony from mr swanson with respect to how much he thought that he was going to give him and that it all depended upon mr swenson meeting certain obligations down the road years down the road he had to turn twenty one he had to become a master and then he says and other conversations he said well if everything is in my name you basically just tell me what was going on who left the partnership percentage just because it was like a relative worth but according to his testimony he understands have to say well you can't be your partner because you're not twenty one  there basically was not mr mr weston basically did not president that yes we are partners here on the one hand they're still denying that there's a partnership he's not