very briefly over the past almost eight years now we have contended that the signatures on these documents are skewed forged whatever and then after all this time if i only had a judge say this which i seem to know what i think is a good thing some of the refinancing documents appear to be dated may st two thousand and five refinancing documents contain signatures that are not have middle initials and now you can be made to someone who has inserted the militias and that is where they do not appear to match the others usual signature case one hundred and eighty four documents in the bankruptcy case one hundred signed and signed and filed documents the point is that at this that's what we've been saying all this time we've tried to mediate as it happened under the last thing i believe that it gives us is an association of facts only with the two thousand and twelve the point we may in our brief but i do want to focus in on the current argument that the that his conclusion that the that these singers may have been modified so that shows that because ultimate conclusion was incorrect and what a policy point you do your honors if they want you to ignore all the other evidence and that evidence is is mountainous literally there is evidence that they applied for a loan that they appeared for a closing that they signed a long documents that these talks were notarized that they paid the loan for more than a year now only that but to make the payments they made correspond exactly to the payments due under the loan pursuant to the teela disclosures they want to issue into the till of disclosures that's true but i found that confusing because the note provided for interest at eight point something percent for the st month but then i think was one and a quarter percent for the st year or so but the payments on the t l of form remained essentially built under the loan so those that did correspond and also they asked the court to ignore it just cause it to ignore the fact that they received more than a quarter of a one million dollars from countrywide bank in that refinance transaction and that just that that does not happen absent a complete and authorized transaction again they paid for it for year and once they defaulted they sent letters to the service and in those letters they refer to it as our loan they want our loan modified and the court cannot simply ignore that evidence and while just johnson did find that a six years may have been modified afterwards that evidence must be viewed in light in context with everything else you can see it would be ignored and just often looked at that he observed the witnesses mr wells ak and miss 't a question of fact about the effect a subsequent alteration of the signature for example i think judge johnson made it fairly clear he thought this somebody later on put in the middle  you yes come back up please and you can use let's see how much time you have left if you come up to mr will so your position is that when the signatures were changed that turned it into a gift no it turned into forgery that's what we'll give to it when you didn't have to repay the money you'd originally borrowed correct so yes because the  just very quickly it changes all the contract law you cannot tell people signatures you know if they wanted me to resign and do something or they saw something wrong ok well we don't like the middle initial hearing and the other alterations of the year sloan package was developed in two thousand and five where they can go into other things about the signatures and so on the judge ruled that's your personal guarantee it doesn't get changed once you sign it and did it that's it you leave it alone that's that's a lot that's we have to stand by i have from years ago thank you very much thank you for your time t