right away this court has already held that the review provisions at issue here can be equitably told and that was in the new york republican state committee it's now worth that opinion didn't case rule twenty six  very understandable mistake the two courts names are very similar in fact the statutes at issue here and don't even include refer to this court if you look on page one any of the greenbury the review provision for the securities act refers to this ordinarily under the statute state courts have jurisdiction over the claims but in that particular case there is no higher state statute that prevented those planes from being found in that particular court when eight days later the put the places in that case filed  the united states supreme court said that that situation wanted equitable tollway and again the key thing is that there was no prejudice the parties were diligent in given the fusion the understandable confusion that he represented party made the supreme court heller should be given to parties who are not lawyers who do not understand the way that waters understand the distinction between the united states words and not a united states court this is the mistake that mr young made it was very understandable and given that there was no practice the government should correct further it was reasonable for mr young who was acting pro se before the i c c not to raise this novel constitutional argument in his petition to the f c c at the time it was two years away from the st i c c decision  represented a fundamental change in the law prior to lucia there were two possible interpretations of the french that case and the interpretation that this person this court endorsed in the landry case was a well hidden pattern of lies active concealment of the activities and outright theft at the heart of this crime was fraud this section and the false occasion of records for two years at the end of stanford scheme i serve that you could points off for the north america group of companies and was one of the many people who was lied to in the delay during this time i asked for and received information from the perpetrators over repeatedly misled and deceived as were others including the  three years three half years after the unraveling of the scheme i was charged by the f c c with various violations of the various security rules for example they missed quarter to mischaracterize the road show and stated that i would reckless and come in and conducting the road show because the purpose in their mind was to the purpose of mine was to for me to promote the soundness quote unquote of the bank a clear clear review of the record shows that i never used those words and a clear review of the record shows with the intention of the other grocer was they also stated that i was there also stated that i was negligent and reckless in approving the marketing materials although they know in the records show that i had no ability to approve any document issued by the bank in approving it was for use approving the material based on mine it was standing for the facts they also stated that i was negligent and reckless in the training of financial advisors but two things are important here they said i was an reckless and negligent in training the  because i failed to inform them that i did not know the contents of the ongoing portfolio or did not verify the portfolio to fax or visor that as a result of reviewing the record number one they didn't have any witness that testified that i actually trained financial testified that training and number two the verification of the ongoing portfolio is not required under currents under current state statutes laws and regulations and as a reminder to this court the bank that we're talking about was an offshore bank that was at stanford coincided very closely with that of made off one of the things that he approved and i think that approved in december of two thousand and eight was made off talking points that were offered by the by the president of the bank and approved by the stanford legal department those talking points talked about the exposure that the bank did not have and compared the bank's exposure to what made offhand this was this was offered like i said by the president the bank and this confirmed all the broke all of the representations made to me when during my conversation with the intake in regulator less than two weeks prior to this you can communication i spent nineteen years as a regulator and know how to do my job i know how to do due diligence and know how to do compliance i was responsible for oversight of general a district examinations and the firms in the state of texas as a growth as a result of this experience one of the things they quite you was to document everything that you did and i documented my files but it just seems interesting that of the only three files missing on the s c seascape file index are my three due diligence files to this day i have not seen those files i was not allowed to see those files have not seen those files and preparation my defense these are critical were preserved as part of the record the record reflects i did exactly what i was trying to do and exactly what i've done but it would have done as well as a regulator including but not alluded to talking to the actual regulator face to this court should adhere to the statutes and precedent that require rejecting this petition turning to the jurisdiction issue this court ordered brief we're happy to answer any questions with respect to that well you when you assert  toing twenty six b does not seem to apply to equitable tolling and that's clearly the case  unnecessary of a decision of the court that we would understand a lot of the supreme court's case lot to talk about statutes in particular because nutraceutical involved will not a statute and here we have statutes that by their express year delay it didn't apply hardly a great surprise so our understanding is that is based in part on the court's statement we also hold that such challenges must be brought in this court within sixty days and there are no grounds for exception in this case which and the can the court under steel company even get to the question of the particular facts and tell his side of that some set of facts might be relevant so that this court has some know they're after steel company i believe they are also even after sino com that said your honor we don't believe that that's necessary here because we believe that even if the statute is not jurisdictional it is at least mandatory because there is the statute which is even greater the what there file a time with petition deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction and we understand that reasoning to survive our bar because it is exactly the kind of reasoning are by talked about as being something that goes to the courts power to hear the case that  your honor we would point out that this the supreme court has that in many rico and in nutraceutical in a number of others that if the rule is at least mandatory that it would foreclose equitable tolling we understand or at least equitable exceptions et what we're saying is that after our bought and after the more recent supreme court cases like nutraceutical if the statute is at least mandatory if for it should be understood to foreclose equitable tolling but regardless we think that this court already held this extreme  specifically the portion of the commission's opinion that is pointed to we explained in our brief actually refers to a different non section two thousand four hundred and sixty two issue that was raised by mr young in his reply brief at least that's how we understand  issue passed upon by the commission so the mark yeah but the commission actually addressed this issue our understanding our understanding no your honor is that if the commission's opinion refers to it as being something mr young argued the point that he argued was not this one did not the language of the commission cover this issue to be clear your honor we understand this court's opinion in zacharias to foreclose understanding the commission's analysis on broader issues the other a statute of limitations issues that mr young did preserve to actually extend to this new just gorgeous amount statute of limitations issue that amicus has presented and we have what we would say is that derives the distinction was made between that thing would not be sufficient to preserve it and so the commission's addressing a non section two thousand four hundred and sixty two dollars argument about his total salary amount for purposes of measuring disgorgement would not actually preserve some question about under with respect or a little bit just to clarify something for the court on mr young's presentation i would just note that mr young's description with respect to whether he promoted the founders of the bank that's something that  our brief addresses but especially when there's testimony that mr young invoked his nineteen year regulatory experience in order to convince convince the advisors that he had in fact done due diligence that would although congress can foreclose equitable tolling is presumed but it does not and it must say so clearly when it chooses to this court correctly held in new york republican state committee that that review provisions at issue here can be equitably told and domestic security is the case that the government site is not to the contrary because even though that court does say something about jurisdictional it then goes on to consider whether or not there might be an exception in that case for lack of notice that is an equitable exception it does not appear in the statute so if that was