or on the other hand with all the information as to whether this letter was sent or not totally in control of that one witness well it was brought up with us and they were suggesting we should have gone to print union understand very clearly what you say about changing position but when you talk about the to the judicial admission of the fact he's he is not saying that he didn't say what he said in the first in the arbitration but now he's giving an explanation and saying he was wrong i see that as different to stop a situation because basically it's un changed whether or not he was he was wrong in the sense of what was trance what the what the the letter contained in what was transmitted to the client whether or of the cases but you could look at the committee comments to subsection b room and three if there's some language in there now this is this isn't the queerest thing in the world but it has a language in there about the this is what could result from that view you could say oh well i'll slant the testimony of this plan see if i land if i don't win then i'll come back with something different but at the trial is that just completely contrary to yes has been suggested this is not why eighty discovery deposition or to potentially deposition or a request to admit or an answer to a floor this is a statement made in a mandatory arbitration hearing at which there was no a transcript there was no recording made mr steele there's really no dispute about the fact that he gave a contradictory statement because in the testify at trial that i did the opposite there is no dispute that he made the statement the question though is the you have less stating that it was and then you had a letter stating that it was up and now are changing your story to say the fact it wasn't reported incident it never was reported correct question so we're to believe your testimony now is supposed to the answer yes or i'm holding so now i also will ask mr dirty later on regarding that testimony that we indicating that this debt was ever reported to them by you know and i investigated that with korean t v too in there was never anything reported now it seems to me that it will be half years a situation where that i mean it isn't there an issue about his intent i mean obviously they intended to send this letter out or they intended to deceive the the that that or into it may very well be their intent to report to because that's what it says they intend to do that's right and then the letter that was sent out that said we didn't report it either and they were in town was that they that they in fact which is what we suggest actually happened there was really no evidence here that they intend to deceive the debtor in this case and i don't think that really keep the this report had not been made and actually that's true it is but there was never any discovery taken prior to that or hearing in which he was asked defense and i would suggest to the poor that this is exactly not the kind of case in which it surely construe he stated to be statements of the arbitration that he sent the letter and that he didn't report it in the letter shows he reported that you think he said that because he was nervous well first of all i think yes actually and that is exactly what i'm saying ok so at the time of the arbitration he knew that despite what was stated in the latter's it had not in fact not been transmitted to t i thought you were talking the obvious i should have made that clear i like yours so if that is are you saying then that it was it just wasn't asked in such a way that it would have been brought out explanation for that and i don't really know this is exactly the kind of situation that the courts talk about when the coffin about a chance statement made by an it was forty one like if you knew that at the time why wasn't he can't explain why he testified the way he did i would suggest again to testimony trial is really the truth but that's not really with the court i guess is determining this  sent out but we checked that in and it never really did get sent to the credit people and so we had the sides on a ship and so the question would be would that be a judicial admission maybe maybe not but now we've got just the opposite situation we have the fact that we've got the concrete ladders but he that's all he stood by was concrete ladders knowing all along that that wasn't  if i could also get it dressed myself to the issue of whether or not this issue was waived it's hard for me in again this is some of this i've not had a chance to look at before oh this is a situation where clearly all a complaint on the record there pretty he he didn't move to do it and that's kind of where we're at now is there anything is that really available to you now if you ask for that or where and why he would not ask for that up to this point one thing i meant to do  he would do that he would do that but in any event our position is as i've already said it like that so it was a judicial mission whether you're a nurse or not if you say something that's plain that is that claim you you can't back away  no to something then you can't go back in at the if you know discovery deposition you can't go back and say well i really mean yes which is kind of the situation here well what if they didn't do it why do you damage