and i wouldn't be here i would not have made my record in the court below and some listed the temp order in order to make this  it's not an issue in case but mr may time was posed for over three hours and willingly testified on all relevant topics in the case but it when it came time to testify about completely unrelated what we refer to as bank examiner allegations i instructed them not to answer those questions because they were totally improper totally irrelevant not calculat because well for one thing i think the fact that they have the information from somebody else all of that detailed information from somebody else does depriving the plaintiff that's correct with regard to a two thousand to two thousand and three loan relating to a motel here springfield those bank examiner allegations have nothing to do with that now if this is part of a part of a practice part of an army growing conspiracy  why wouldn't the entire package be fair game for the plaintiff and never to demonstrate this because all of that other information regarding other loans is totally irrelevant to the take it or issues in this case there is no allegation of conspiracy there is an allegation of a pattern of conduct that the only pattern of contact that would be relevant in this case would discovery being open rock talking about where it is now and where could reasonably lead it's not uncommon in cases we see all the time where plaintive brings a complaint  involving one or two counts has for the discovery of six to it to it this is certainly something that you would be familiar with absolutely but you're order you yes and there's nothing in the complaint about conspiracy aren't you required to demonstrate to us that there is no way no way any reasonable person like the judge in this case could conclude defend a complaint which hasn't been high i simply don't we're here to deal with what we've been presented where and that is a crime case regarding a court it would be very unfair to require mr made time to make a choice at this point since he's questions are so not only did they have this information already through those detail exhibits but mr made time in connection with the problem the alleged problem that he was basically allegedly moving money around on a particular loan unrelated to the issue in this case and she was supposed she testified in the other thing that i will point out is we made our generation's on behalf of mr mate based upon the existing the point at that has been away from the bench for a while that is still pending before the court we filed a motion to strike that and i think complain as has the other had a valid excuse for violating the court's order order him to answer the deposition questions you refused previously used to answer the standard of review is abuse of discretion and we submit that judge deal not abuses his freshman holding and for example over one two year period it increases loan portfolio by something like i believe the percentage of like fifty percent on the standard is about four percent a year mark the below zero percent of what i don't loan portfolio in other words a dramatic increase and as part of that process it made a number of bad loves including a bad loan that are bought out from buzy bank to the shri own corporation which was secured by the motel the route sixty six route sixty six motel at the same time some of the other bad loans it made were to randy mcafee and aaron shipley are companies that they own or control this all happened during the same time period the the arrangements with mr valor were made during two thousand and two and two thousand and three we do alleged in the complaint that there was a pattern of conduct that the defendants were acting in concert which is another type of conspiracy claim and that all of this happened during the same time period the  evidence is that marine bank including philip may time who was the c e o at all times and question i've engaged in a number of fraudulent and deceptive practices to conceal the bad loans bank was attempting to sell the bad property the property secured by the bad loans to and that included the loans and sale you and question the bank actually sold the route sixty six months helps mr ballen his company then loaned him the money for the purpose of the purchase and some five hundred thousand in improvements he made between the time he signed the contingent purchase contract in september two thousand and two till he completed the purchase in march of two thousand and three he was shown an appraisal of three and a half million dollars and told him my child was worth more than three and a half million dollars or evidences the bank knew that was not true when he completed the purchase in march of two thousand and three and made a loan of two million two hundred fifty thousand which covered the five hundred thousand and improvement see and done in the interim he was shown a five million dollar appraisal for property which was needed to justify that loan but he was not shown is that in the end trying to manc and gotten an appraisal for received an appraisal from taft appraisal four million nine hundred thousand dollars which loans that were made to mcafee and bear and shipley were also bad loans and in order to cover up the fact that there were a series of bad loans mr ma ballarat and selling it to him for an inflated price all of this was happening at the same time period that deposition questions that he refused to answer are certainly relevant could certainly lead to the discovery of relevant evidence to show intent to defraud and a pattern of conduct which included the defrauding of mr valid we would submit to the court that mr may time has not established evaluate excuse for not answering the questions which he has the burden of doing and that the standard of review is abuse of discretion which you also  met and that the order of holding him and contempt should be affirmed on the waiver issue of the fifth amendment there was a pleading filed and it's quoted in the record and it's quoted in the response to the motion to strike paragraph two in which the read written pleading responding to the motion for contempt this clearly suggested that the language was  made time quote had no choice but to decline to answer a question based on his fifth amendment privilege close quote so when we have a demotion i thought he was arguing the fifth amendment and i argued against that i'd say swayed that by not raising it and then mr kaufman said i want to make it clear he's not asserting the fifth amendment so at the time i took him at his word he was not asserting it and then on appeal when he argued well the court shouldn't force him and that having to take having to respond to defend claim allegations is very very far afield from the issues in this case different loans different parties different time unrelated to the marine bank loan to the plaintiffs in this case and make them believe different activity what is comprised of exhibits ten and nineteen and testimony of other people is allegations that mr may time was using some money in the bank to make it appear that other unrelated loans were within the bank say for non sufficient funds and then some other charges if you will for the bank that generate some income that he allegedly that has no because believe me the plaintiffs and their experts have been all over the particular loan involved in this case and have you know follow the money if you well and no money generated from the marine bank transfer or purchase has been moved around if you will to make other