i could not assume from the record that mr carson was being paid every time he sold the stock a percentage like three percent or whatever people who sell stock are paid or if you've been if you might ask that question he standpoint because it was not an issue the only issue that he was called upon to confront at the trial was whether or not he received the right he adamantly denied receiving  or he wouldn't go to canada the company has a penny stock if we didn't expect to get paid well it doesn't tell me that expects to get paid illegally for size leon and the same scheme is not to sell something and get paid fishing around there and if you stop by the place on the way or could have been i mean i don't know from the record exactly as speculating as to all of these reasons and the reason why we come here with a due process argument is we were never called upon to present that applies that in this circumstance where the magistrate lodges did not address the issue of whether he anticipated payment and that's done as an independent ground by by the reviewing court but that strategy to average the stock at least mr closely testified and in fact the customer also testified that that was the recommendation to average down his position for the long term and the only way why he was referring clients elsewhere is only obligation on the case that was presented was to convince the trier of fact that he had not received a bright and he successfully did that it was unnecessary for him to go beyond the scope of that client now so i'm having trouble with this notice argument that you may as you can recall from the order instituting proceedings the language of extremely bro whether it gets more specific and answers the question so and wrote back stock to unsuspecting customers in return for undisclosed payments of money made or arranged by the other responders right isn't don't recommend rectum in stock that they won't get a commission on i mean i think we can agree on that that brokers would not generally recommend a stock for someone to purchase that would not result in financial gain to that broker and agree that labor is in the end i know that the driver is has paid other laborers and has arranged for funds to be unable to pay labors and i get on the truck and i work that day involved in his finding and i for my reading that he was not credible and the places where where he was otherwise found liable the commission through goes out because they weren't part of the proceedings so you get back down t no bearing on the testimony about cost in telling richmond that payments could be available the reason that they are changing partially discredited richmond was that richmond's testimony as to the haven't explored this but we have a very clear rule with respect to the findings made by the board of immigration appeals that that's a virus they don't have that power they have to if they are if they're troubled by a factual issue they have to wasn't necessary in fact mr karslake how do you make findings in the absence of evidence but you couldn't but that wasn't necessary here your honor all there was substan contradiction about when the conversation were taking place because in the early part of the financially the judge finds that he made the sales between january and some time ago i want to say it's a first in january and april through april first your honor when the customer that made the purchased after the trip evidence and he never made such a motion even when the commission permanently raised on its own motion the issue of whether he anticipated any cost made no motions saying we i have some evidence that i would hearing but we only one on the one point that we were aware of and we knew we could successfully defend because he was not guilty of that had we didn't give an adequate notice and counsel says what we got notice of the hearing which took place case that we know they cannot make because we were not prejudiced by that but once they changed the rules which they changed again then we were prejudiced we were advised of that until that according to the commission the day of the e ring when they changed their theory in fact