want to hang him by his own words basically to prevent getting to what may be the core issue this case the question is can you successfully do it you know there are other arguments that he makes besides when you see james poole as you're trying to sue him you saw him in a certain capacity now can a party rely on what you're the reason for the reason you're bringing him into certain papers with him rely on that and say i'm not going to do anything and at the end not expect later on to have a personal judgment hindered against him in another capacity not because agent an employee i don't believe is a legal capacity it is a description of a relationship and if you look at the other evidence in this case your honor this isn't i b m this is a one person corporation operating out of his house if you look at the other evidence in the record that clearly indicates that individually and then having received an adverse ruling there was an attempt to sneak them in as it's a different entity but that that's that's that's work of fiction it between suing us and agents were swimming pool in the virtual is there any difference i guess is the liability under tork law pretty much the same in one of the employees and then you say that a large amount of water was on the left around in the entity decision clears was negligent thing probably would have been to file some sort of motion motion to dismiss motion to strike something up they have stored we should be here six years later guessing whether or not mr clearly intended or whether he knew that he was being ser the thing is your honor work here making excuses for him as to what he did it in it's clear that he had no a c file or stuff on the record i have one question though if this is adequate the state where you set up this case and passed relief against mr poole this was adequate the just against him as agent and employee was adequate why wasn't necessary for you to then go for it and and individually in your judgment and that has never been done before and what is bad read the record thoroughly the only relief the pool asked for in his forty one petition was to strike out the individual the party if that's all he wants around i don't think it makes a difference because the way you contested it vigorously below the ended best i think that's all we requested was that the that the judge be vacated as to who individually but here's the thing if these yours if it's personal i suppose it is if it's subject matter that might be another problem this is it a question of subject matter jurisdiction or is it a question simply of all allocations i don't know i suppose if in fact it's a jurisdictional issue it never gets up here it's just decided on that basis and you never really get into whether or not the ethical standard of review should ever be met  power not any particular judge so it may be the fact that the court itself has the power to do it whether a judge just sitting there in a set or not anything else i don't have anything further thank you thank you individual was a precision dissolve at the time of the service position was dissolved during and and more and also as the record points offshore is there any real is there the the proper decision which is what i argue initially when i filed my that the fault of the titian name in clearly deposition cleaning at the time that it was even named as an entity sworn to in the fact you have an injury that your company is responsible for a are all corporate you're responsible for and there's been a worker's comp claim and the company that you worked for as an agent in this case fed ex and that worker's comp claim has already been resolved and your mouth that was resolved in that case was approximately seventy thousand dollars and now the only possible liability is anything in addition and now you go from a seventy thousand dollars first book mishap for half a million dollars half a million dollars  service a corporation name you sell that sir so this case nailed one way or the other so your only argument now is what counsel read it justice raised earlier the jur dictional issue the service issue is is it smoked it it's the youth tatooine hope here and that's if you can address the jurisdictional issue i'm between the two judges he specifically said based on the christ in he said i would not only a stress this the issue of whether or not there was sufficient notice on james be in bed nevertheless and that this was a backwards and it was brief and just were rolled and i didn't see that in the appeal with respect to this i don't know if that's even if we were properly addressing  as a pointed out of my previous judge bork was completely and totally aware of every single order issue that was provided in this case he preview the petition filed by mr poe he also reviewed the response of pleading he divided the actual initial motion into two separate issues heat he gave complete instructions with respect to the parties to narrow the scope of what would be argued in what would be the legal as well as add here to that general principle cory do instead of giving it to the judge and jury the order you give it to another judge who has the jurisdiction to thing but even in that case there's no clear indication that it was jurisdictional it's something that the court may supreme court may interfere breath under its supervisory rule in your favor of sops you would be the one who would be able to trigger any reaction supervisor