reliant their half of a reliance on the statements that were allegedly false that's determined on a case by case basis i understand but i don't think i think it's clear myself anyway  that in your mind is that entirely a factual question so we're looking for clear air is it some sort of a mix of law and factory do you think it's a legal question well i think that's  retry the credibility of mr ball if we take what he said he did what he wanted was fifteen percent interest you know they were part money long you know they were being made to creditors i false testimony and he has a sexpert but all the expert did was talk about how the payments were allocated so in the briefs there were there were numerous witnesses that there was only h testimony he had invested a one million almost a one million dollars by making loans over four months fifteen percent interest in a booming  you didn't go over them with mr so he got these two investor activity reports so there are four longs but there are only two investor activity reports for the st two guineas said he obviously you take the could you interpret all that the other way and say that that all reinforces the idea that this individual was trusting your client he was expecting your client to basically do that grunt work for him absolutely i believe he stated that a couple of times when he was out but it isn't that reliance that was that reliance i think that's the opposite of rel but when when the question is what could you do about something nothing and i just i just trusted what this guy told me when we were in the realm of justifiable reliance we are entitled to look at a relationship we're in time look at subjective factors so my sense of this has always been that what we're looking for to get out of justifiable reliance is something that's just such a big red flag that you can't ignore there's no obligation to do an investigation but this is such a red flag that's kind of a stop the presses moment and i think what you're arguing is more cumulative that you know this sort of just didn't make any sense so therefore he should be brought and in my view that's a different argument from what the cases are telling us so tell me how you reconcile this yes this  assaults tire shop when they got new tires and that was the extent of his relationship with the brother he admitted that he didn't know where you're from adam until they started guy i remember he is it these red flags and then i accept that there was no i mean i guess you could say there was no giant red flag but what we have is a gentleman that he basically jumped on it and well why did she jump on that well i just believe mr wade so that's that can be justifiable reliance in my opinion so so you're not so much challenging the finding of reliance in percent five percent per month this is a great way to make money how where do i get it and i met this guy on a golf course he seems like you know is that he's doing you never got any financial information why well i trust justin but isn't that reliance in fact to suppose well i don't we've been over that i think there's two different things here's well there's there's one case i know i forget the name i found the answer so it's one hundred and ninety percent which is who gets to your only arguing reliance here before us the truth the assertion is that there was a fraud and no matter what your reliance we assume he was assuming that he wasn't going to be defrauded he was assuming that he was getting the right sets of this was about whether it was a bad investment i i hear everything you're saying you know i don't think you could sue him for negligence for example because it  break but the the what he did was he relied on statements including that some of the loans were secured all of them were secured things that were just patently untrue he relied on the fact that he was going to only use the money for certain purposes not true and if we if we assume that those the actual findings are correct what does that do to your argument you know he has certainly been based on what i mean based on a conversation wandering around a is essentially substantial evidence clear a standard view that's what applies here in terms of who testified a trial the trial of actually conducted in terms of the direct testimony came in terms of the  objective and subjective components and one of the most important objective components here is that mr smith or ways of went out of his way in order to project a high level of probity and honesty investor by any means in any event this debate over these factual issues is essentially a really good sense of the fact that the bankruptcy court tried and and a determination  as a question about the credibility determinations because if not i have to ask this took forever until there's a trial and i i'm in my courtroom so i'm looking at my witness box and i see a person and i form an impression and then i will on it as i think the credibility determinations can and should be given incredible deference how many years between seeing the testimony and making the determination because it was a long time yet does that impact i mean i'm not sure it does i'm just as a matter of law the general rule is that we give great deference do we have to take into account that the determination at we didn't find credible because of the amount of time right i mean that's if you apply that to the rest of the judgment i mean that raises some questions i think well your honor the i would i would say that  it's right to ask the questions but the i think the answer is clear and the answer is the ultimate we have to go back to deciding whether the amended final judgment is supported by some special evidence and that's still the substantial evidence issues and how much time he spent he went through this record very carefully you know very careful in pointing out exactly what evidence he relied on in making determinations of reliance than the other elements of  and i think if i'm understanding correctly the font of this is the twenty nine or thirty thousand dollars payment that i don't think judge wants a count of perhaps because it had been made yet or had been brought to his attention because the the credit they don't really complain about it because i think the assumption is you're going to agree that one way or the other some twenty one thousand dollars or so it just when it's going to be made and i guess i will ask whether you would agree with that and if so how do you  think we would best you know facilitate that process for if you guys you know there's going to be a stipulation an agreement or a satisfactory judgment maybe that's the way to do it but you know st of all i guess the question is are you in agreement that there is another payment that's got to be calculated here no record cites in the reply for that issue and i make sure i'm following you because to me it was two different issues i think you know the math that the judge kwan had in front of him resulted in a fifty thousand dollars overpayment and then there's a question of to what that should've been a of the way i understood it there was about one hundred and two thousand dollars that was credited from the chapter seven to state of the entity correct right but in fact about one hundred and thirty one was actually received correct it's not two different things tell me because otherwise it looks like that's something else that's going to have to configure that nor i was what i was focusing on is the fifty thousand dollars over  because everybody agreed there was another payment that was part of this and should have been part of the calculation the judge launches didn't do it perhaps because he was unaware but at the time can we cut to the chase here and just it sounds like you agree the numbers a little off yesterday there is no based on this record it's impossible to say that there's a final judgment amount that is probably correct ok so that has to be worked out maybe there's no way to do that but if there is a suggestion that regard we're listening i just don't see how that's possible there are because the judge will still occurring interest so this matter has to be worked out well we heard the other when when he goes back acknowledging the math there because those are things that we would be banging our heads against the the desk trying to figure out ourselves again much appreciated thank you our this is exactly notes of what he does impressions where maybe went back and listen to recordings made this would be dangerous for just say if you take too long your findings don't get same deference to get otherwise i think it is in this case as to the fact that loan and deciding to change his mind about the mr hayes was he really reassessing credibility or was he saying you know there were some other documents that were before me and i just didn't consider them when i do consider them i think there is a record on which i could find  process but he can go back to the testimony right and reassess the cancer of witnesses he didn't change his mind about who to believe he changed his mind about what it should consider because he had considered some documents change his mind you know there is there is but there there was couple of there was some e mails there was there was he relied on almost nothing and he got no documentation whatsoever before even find my golf club the morning that i was you know i was just sort of a mass shooting while i'm listening actually that if i if i was put in some group and there are some bankruptcy lawyers that i know are somebody else