assemble some evidence but after he answers a contempt order and we have this gross profits it's the burden is on mr kaplan a cola to come up with any offsets in effect and he has an opportunity in a briefing schedule and he doesn't you know he doesn't kind of make the grade so to speak so then the judge instead of entering an order which he could have done at that point in fact is another chance by going to an independent auditor to figure out what the figures are for deduction and again he has an opportunity to go through and he does respond to most of that this goes on over you know a period of a year or so i keep having trouble thinking that it's  audited financial statements prepared for a four year period in twenty eight days that would have been impossible to do even when the auditor was appointed it was agreed that sort of five financial statements couldn't be prepared for our first single location question that i want to make sure i get them in before you're at a time there are two things that i want to do to address one is the issue as to whether or not in the profits calculation you should take into account which is what your argument but i want to pursue it a little bit the compensation that would have been paid to a person who is running the delicatessen and that's that that was an argument because what we call the i don't know i don't know how to pronounce his name but will call him rock for where the auditor made an incorrect assumption about whether they should be deducted and there are about eleven of those categories which are by the way undisputed and that were improperly taken into account in pumping up the profits to an imaginary level fees let me turn to the my second question what do you feel should have been deducted from the profits in white of the supreme court in light of th considerations that have nothing to do with the may have nothing to do with the operation of the business now there is maybe a very profitable business but he's sitting out there having one tax liability or another tax liability or credits and so forth and so on and therefore months just to do a review let alone produce audited financial statements that couldn't have been produced so he did what he could in the time available and if you couldn't have foreseen the gross errors that the auditor would mean when he was faced with those errors took them a little while to get the documents falcao them back on may thirty first and by the beginning of august here the sound old huge amount of information and to dispute every one of these functions and it was in terms of copies of char w in the memphis lights case from the supreme court's down through that proposition well i think that we need to determine that's not due process or do you think if there was even one or don't all added up to seventy eight thousand so i guess what are you asking us then to reverse those issue by issue as a matter of law or are you asking us to find you know in a blanket way that your client was denied due process and therefore he should have an opportunity to it's a matter of law that was wrong or are you saying that actually what is wrong is it is is the the proper calculations there were no profits in this case i know you're saying the law but are you big why did you go back to the former and explain to me because he issued the order and then in your post dollar or your post dollar motions you then put in additional stuff has in your view is were really no way to do that the report was clearly wrong and the documentary evidence all about some from very point of view they have the opportunity i think the record is complete from it's like ira thank you want to the question has been put to this court was the due process in a number of respects including focusing on the issue of these issues about the  and then on july twenty sixth a look we'd like a ruling on this right and then on august first he files this very very lengthy memorandum with alacrity the judge would have this matter under for ten months it was a ruling five days later overruling all the objections now putting all that side for a moment how would we even start to inquire into whether the basis for the retraction of all of the objections was correct or had some basis rule he doesn't give me in the record exactly what the judge said because i read the judge's opinions in this case i don't find it so you show me in the record what what what we look at in order to find out the merit of any of wouldn't be here right if they come to a different conclusion at least on that issue but i'm asking you for the reason the reasons the judge gave me for rejecting it i can't give you as the as the defendant claims here he does have the record your honor can i was fond of that the record on this case is very very clear that the auditor enormous with the talent getting any records from you and that is why there's a problem here if there's a problem here in terms of completeness of record it's a problem that the point made by not by not having those records available to most and most and months for the other you're telling us your tell us that in your opinion in your opinion when counsel in their declaration said actually the documents upon which  you claim are there are there you're saying that's wrong that's wrong well where and by the way we are in the record do we find that where do we fall in your opinion where do we  find that the documents which for example that went for an insurance payment or a lot to do this or that or all these mistakes in which he says i didn't have the documents where do we go where was the inquiry made as to whether or not the wrong they're saying it was right there so that's why we have like trial judges that's why we have finders of fact that's why we have those people out there who are supposed to take conflicting claims and they can find the three specific examples of what he points out where what was available at that from i'm almost immediately thereafter was the self same massive set of objections that the leaders thought to have introduced and considered there was a delay that was causing some unexplained a delay in getting that before the trial judge and yes with all that all that delay everything was still before this two months that will join in july and then early august we've got the final record in that timeframe he says i need more time i want to hearing i can see some of these dispute but it's clear from his additional motions later that were filed after the judge's order and he had some other concrete objections that he didn't make during  that's a little bit different question that we would have to look at my my question is this is he now says i've made all my objections i have everything in the record and would you agree that some of the objections that he made after that were came were actually so that i think i think additional things were added later but the point is they could have been included and it's on and that raises now it's the credit question and that does raise a question of if you don't know when the is how do you know that you should've basically spent your one at that point and i mean and otherwise if you asked for a hearing and you asked for more and then you don't hear from the judge i could see where a lawyer would say well question of of perhaps litigation tactics one of the choices is that when you have all and national objections a number of objections would you think invalidate  seem a little bit lickety split to have sixty days but not know that you have sixty in other words if the judge said you have sixty days and they didn't get it in then you might say ok i'm sorry it wasn't  a reasonable period of time that i am struggling with is if you really don't know what the deadline years how do you know when you're supposed to kind of drop your final i guess again you know the answer to that and it's a very fair question as you don't know but when you don't know and you do have objections i think you kind of take your chances and terms of how you approach this if you have three examples you say you have three person against him with pretty substantial contempt this court actually doesn't know that there's a deadline well yeah i can understand the concern for that in the context of the case and having the idea that it was making some minimal profit numbers and twenty thousand dollars it is no sense it just couldn't be that way and the idea of this gentleman mr c managing the the employees or vine produce or doing any of those things why wouldn't that be appropriate for compensation because she is getting compensated by saving  mathematical or in your view accounting type errors noted or found four hundred fifteen thousand dollars profit after making adjustments for the four year period ninety seven through two correct ok so we have to put it i mean we have understood it to mean several things and we just want to make sure that they will argue and they have they would argue i would assume look all right we're going to settle this aside boy we're going to come in with our waters and we're going to show that he was