i'm trying to make sure i understand the argument the argument the particular document that contains the arbitration clause is a forgery yes there is no argument that there wasn't actually a deal made to purchase certain materials and to pay a particular price for them yet it does not between and respond and because i didn't see anywhere in the i'm sorry you're saying there there was a deal but it wasn't with you yes ok because i didn't see anywhere a statement an affidavit from your side saying we never bought these materials we never got them the price was different if there was an agreement or we paid for it that there's nothing that goes to the merits of the dispute right it's just a question of is the document containing the arbitration agreement real  country and he is an american citizen who's so we are not arguing about content of a contract we only arguing about as mention about i'm asking you to focus on the one that was listed with the new york secretary of state the brewer avenue address aha so my client told me they avenue address that is listed as your client's address with the new york secretary of state what is defective about that put de facto about that is that i thought it was was there anything really defective about that notice was a former employee so they never open up and that's quite possible they received them actually i received the notice and so then we're left with the nd question which is the forgery issue that you've already foreign a work and that stands directly from the importance of the public policy background and reasons for adoption of the new york convention which is obviously in for the importance of enforcing foreign arbitration awards to international business the burden is entirely on the party opposing that award once the party that is seeking to confirm the award meets its initial burden which is merely to supply the op to supply the agreement that contains the arbitration provision and to provide  note certified translation of one is needed there's no dispute that was done here here therefore that burden shifted to teaching kemp farm to demonstrate that one of these narrow exceptions under the ne convention to recognition exists exceptions that they are attempting to demonstrate your honor so i think it's clear they have not met that high burden here with respect to the notice issue as your honor rightly pointed out the standard is not actual receipt which i notably many of the materials were not returned for instance the arbitration notice was not returned because the arbitration rules was not returned the list of arbitrators was not returned the arbitration application with the evidence submitted by  armless lists with the secretary of state and again council has conceded that papers were sent to that location and likely may have been received and not and simply not opened so we think there's simply no way to find that notice was not reasonably calculated to serve here in accordance with the the due process standards that this court has recognized given that that service was provided they had the opera to me and the knowledge of this proceeding and an opportunity to appear and contest if you're raising a forgery argument if you're arguing that the underlying agreement that provides for arbitration is a forgery that is an argument that needs to be raised to the arbitrators if it is not then it can't then you're barred from raising it in an action to enforce to enforce that decision if you did bring it there then you are barred by the decision that they reached there is no grounds for distinguishing that here and i'll note that this is the st time that chang has even acknowledged the existence of your car there was no attempt made in the underlying pursuit district court proceeding by respondent to address your car despite the fact it was in our papers despite the fact that it was in the district court's decision as the central case on which it's forgery conclusion was reached it wasn't mentioned in their brief on appeal