judgment only on the tortious interference so i mean we only review a final judgment which was entered soley on the tortious interference so i don't see why the ricos it issue and all phrasing and we're trying to figure out what's the most reasonable way that of texas was presented this with a phrase in the issue and one way to crazy issue is is that whatever within the duties of a public official what makes it such a firm decision in your mind that some sort of but we we were only considering what was presented to us and there definitely would not be within the pre show duties to respond to state law to live in the texas legislature the texas supreme court get to define whether there's a right and with respect to mr marshall as a government lawyer there is no civil remedy for porsches interference if there is any connection at all liability that is the school you know you're wrong because under texas law the employer would only be liable in tort for a tort that stems from the use or operation of the motor in essence texas law provides the greatest possible tort community and school districts and school district and that's just a policy choice of the state of texas and when the support financially analyze this case and made here it goes without the benefit of the texas supreme court's it made the wrong guess and because of that the opinion or the judgment t i would like to turn to the rico climb recognizing judge ca state your your point about where the judgment is but i do want to discuss it at least with the board because if the court were to end when the board strikes the tortious interference  allegations originally the jury bought into it in large part was that this is basically the way marshall was conducting business with all these doctype subcontractors  or whether or not there ever would have been another john draft and critically important bring it all back around all that was left of the rebuild plan after the first appeal was that narrow window in time from august two thousand and nine until the end of the two prevent other contractors from getting the con trucks and you just have to work with that opinion i didn't really address what you before y happened in texas  did so the question as it was defending marshall doing his job when he took these bribes and then when he acted on the crimes when he walked over to the administrative office and was pressuring dick lindsay melinda officials to make sure that somehow one way or another is preferred contours and to the top of this lest it would be surprising also that he would want to make sure that g r g i think now your honor i would just say that i think it's really important that we jury's verdict here it's really well supported by all of the evidence and to do anything otherwise  said moving on to the lottery question the texas supreme court has no basis to merely remind everybody this is established agency they took the lottery case to apply principles of agency law to clarify the election doctrine because the lower courts were getting they had done exactly what this court had done which was look to the motivation look to the subjective intent of the public employee and say if you have a bad mood if you have an illness you're outside the course and thank all of you for helping us with this case today and the others who have made presentations that is it for today's docket we will be in recess until tomorrow from noon to one o'clock