and that is the only issue that the court addressed that is the only issue then that comes up here well materially they had raised that issue they raised the parent authority before the district court the district court didn't decided on the question of  and i could address them as well and in fact we addressed them in our priest the row that is evil bank was aware that there was a actual lack of actual sorry if that did not exist they could not the that was the basis of the success here you are trying to you're trying to ruin the underlining agreement which is i think another step that you another hurdle need to get over massachusetts where they actually did challenge the validity of the underlying mortgage based on an incapacity argument and as well as your effect decision which again also that i completely agree ok but the question i have and it wasn't a wake up maybe it isn't that relevant but you intervened in this case right yes was there any direction to your intervention actual authority and they were aware of it as we did raise a row a parent authority is no more than available because rights you know that you don't have the authority to do something or  protection to the members if you read the lender and you see that that is defined is anybody to the bar is mine then you have completely eliminated section seven point five day as a profession provides no protection anybody because what is a lender but someone who offers money to someone who wants to borrow and if the interpretation of seven point five is you can't borrow money without certain other member approval unless you're borrowing it from somebody  wants to lend money you've i mean in all honesty and i would say that that's worthy of you know the great leap great yogi bear and that doesn't make any sense and that does it you can't have first of all six point five very clearly states a bet for authority over two million dollars you need a majority of the other members of the managing members which was obtained help for out of seven members were up thing six return thousand and ten operating agreement which forms the basis of their entire argument that it includes other people other than legal lender is not an operating agreement that was ever invented if the court looks at the two thousand and eleven agreement it references that that the two thousand and ten agreement is not effective and we don't have anything before us that would anything of record that that indicates it was never signed so i don't think we can you know the fact that maybe the copy that we have doesn't have a signature not how does it make any sense only on i think it makes sense the way i explained before try to explain with respect to six point five which talks about borrowing money from lenders it would seem to me that if you want to borrow money from lenders you need to have five out of the even had a chance to file a response to us for reconsideration of that order but we did not us for reconsideration of that order but we did point out to the judge below that we couldn't believe that they were even a secured lender and filed some paintings on that issue is that is i didn't even respond i didn't really focus on that issue on a because i thought it was sufficient in light of the court's question which demonstrated there is no controlling authority for them to step in and start making my arm anselmi ask you this what's the and didn't go on is really irrelevant to the issue here which says deposition taken well nothing is in this case wrong yes there's really no discovery no depositions taken in this case and he's not into question whether or not to run the authoress on i don't believe so i don't believe that faeries opinion after the fact two or three years after the fact after that they borrow the money off to use the money has any relevance to this case at all the corporate resolution it takes on a letter of council so you're lying on a parent authority now your honor i'm sorry if i'm saying that i certainly didn't mean to say that i'm wrong on the actual authority because the actual authority is granted i that maybe some of the money was used by the borrower i believe the record shows unequivocally better the money was used for the bara we cited in the record two instances where they received checks the money went into their account unlike required because seven point five is not required if you comply with sixty five or complied with six point five which refers to the vote of the managing a members and once that was obtained that was one is as i said before i believe that this refers to restructuring we finance it incur any debt we were restructure were refinance and it also says with the exception of the financing to be obtained by line goes ok well then that's putting the rabbit in the hat well arguments that they would be any basis to argue that once eagle bank has rent three million two hundred fifty thousand dollars has a party file affected u c c one reading that a junior league holder could come on could invalidate the lead so i believe it would leave in the same way but a real problem in that it will lose its rights to the asset if you will bank gets the assets and if my client did everything right why should it not be able to say that your bank did everything wrong because there's a law that says the fact that an a has exceeded his or her authority is ordinarily a defense personal to the principal or rather to exercise let's say that that the lender did something wrong what is the issue the right to step wait and not addressed by the court it starts out without limiting the generality of section six point one but subject to the direction oversight of the magic member chairman of the board of matters matters and the consent of