constitutes information created by date of america and said terrorists during those seven years of service kelleher had no exposure to this woman in the service and context until november two thousand and fourteen bank of america you can identify their names on it or a history from soteris you can identify that i that she had no idea what the previous services did that all she testified to was that she took the number she looked at the number of the previous service or it was properly inputted into of these documents under eight zero three six and the district court's final statement is i find it miss simple and as to the objections that are made about some of the calculations not being correct on those going to the weight i will give this document which i have now found to be admissible and then he writes an opinion it note that obviously was not a record generated by the hospital in the normal course of business and it's true we use the language of outsider counsel may it please the court met fitzgerald on behalf of us bank trust first time i'd like to just point out a couple of things about the record that's been discussed it's on pages thirty seven and fifty four of turn to the issue of rule eight zero three six the federal rules of evidence say that they should be construed to eliminate unjustifiable to lay an expense ascertain the truth and secure a just a terminations toward that end the trial judge here assessed the long history in this case and the arguments of mr jones she did not argue the she had been overbilled during the history of her alone at any time she did not argue that she had made any payments that went on recorded she did argue two things about essentially the mass that had been done in her records in the trial court assess those at some length and rejected them she's not repeated those arguments on appeal so what we have here are the trustworthy found to be trustworthy by the trial judge load records for the history of misrata and so on and they were properly admitted into evidence business and their relied on in daily operations none of these fundamental sayings change when they record moves from one business to another and so the correct and widely recognized by rightly recognized rule by this court in the doe decision and by numerous other federal courts is that when a business record moves from one business to another when it's integrated and relied on by the second business it it's picking up it's it's a service or it's not the more you g who is very interested in getting back the money which it loaned at the proper rate of interest with a proper chargers service or as a different it's a different position as for the economic reasons for being really sure that what i have is accurate doesn't exist here same way that would if the direct lender was responsible as it used to be it may be that the interests are not exactly the same your honor but there is ample testimony in this case for instance about the process that was coming through to make sure that their records thrown into well if you are them and that and let's step away from this case for a moment if you're the bottle you're in sort of a high position there aren't you you have to say you have to somehow come in with your own evidence well i've got all these statements there i had up and i guess what you're saying it's that's the bar was obligation as long as the proponents of the document could say well it's it does seem to be at least according to the federal agency amoco is three and the banks have incentives to be sure that this service think the incentives has to be one hundred percent identical to the lender in order to be adequate so it's sort of like saying a lawyer has no incentive to represent their client well because if they lose all the cases it's really the client there is a direct interest on the part of the service or i would suppose even though that interest is not in the in the ultimate sense of being a collector of the money that's  made in that case was that the records that had been brought into evidence contained third party data so that's exactly the issue here the court in responding to that said first it's speculation that there's third party in there but then in the alternatives even if there is a party data in there that has been integrated and relied on adequate so that it can be brought in by these parties and that's the discussion enough to see so what's the safety and she looks at this entire loan history which is a list of dates and ledger entries essentially and she tries to poke holes in it and show that it's on trustworthy the trial judge considers these arguments and rejects them and she hasn't made them again here to show no actually i did make these payments here's the evidence that i made these payments that don't show up and if that happened it seems fairly clear i think that under the rule that on espousing that this court was previously adopted that  rule that has been taken by this court to view and in the dough case and in the direct market entities that that in general run a business where a card or a record moves from one business to another when it's been integrated and relied on  it becomes admissible now the second quarter trustworthiness is always there in all of those cases it always is fair game for discussion it only says can be raised by the borrower and is the loan given integrated on relied on of violence is twenty five hundred a year they are going to all move across the screen there already are happening that way or on the main court has dealt with this issue for ten years yes recognize the problems in this industry it is the proper just a couple of very quick points this issue is broader than just the mortgage servicing industry and you can see it in the case law from this circuit case and the f t c case next point are very meaningful business incentives for service or is to properly do their jobs essentially or they are they won't stay in business thank you thank you thank you bot