could largely on the issue of the release i think it's rises and falls on that point now the other thing i'd like to do is that we're fully aware that the court issued an order to the parties to ask us to it be prepared to address twelve cases given the fact that some of the cases seem to affect both sides what i'd like to do is take a couple minutes and oriented towards where we're coming from and then address some of the issues that are raised cases so with that being said again this is it this is a case one of three  doesn't matter because there's a full party i think the court can address that and i think when we look at the simple notion that there is no law requiring that an individual who wants to be a lineman undergo any particular type of pre employment pre work zero to become a line she signed a release as a part of her first whole climbing class that was a waiver of any liability arising out of injuries associated with the activities in their horse six months later roughly she was injured when she fell off the whole i think it's undisputed that she was familiar with the but guarded and i think the record establishes if you voluntarily signed the release that she said i was under no dress it also is undisputed from the record that she said she believed that there were so economic reasons why she question did this release and we know how she felt i don't think there's any dispute on than the method on how she felt but i think based on those facts we can say as a matter of law on those facts is this release proper was a valid and cover these activities and we have to address the question of whether there's any plea bargain so i think those are the facts of the court has to work with and  and send the case back we think that the court decides i think the question really that we're asking is you know was it proper to strike this on these grounds now i was thinking about that when i was coming over if if the court finds that this unequal parking zation didn't exist then i think we have to send it back for the trop court to make a determination as to whether or not to release them in their four bars because i don't believe that a fair reading  fully aware that she says there were some financial reasons but we'll talk about those in a second but as far as when we look at white the pre employment relationship we don't have that pre employment relationship here as we did in white where we're looking at the association at her employer we're not we're not we don't have those facts what we have here is someone who's trying to better themselves to be able to make themselves more marketable and as i said earlier there is no requirement  law that says you have to have a certain degree to be a line in many companies i think the testimony from mr larkin was many companies many companies prefer to do their training in house so it's not mandatory that she undergo train but the record also says it will help her and we acknowledge that so we don't think there's the relative bargaining position situation here we don't think the white case supports c up position she had other alternatives and now when we look at the financial aspect of it we say well they're arguing she spent sixteen hundred dollars she undertook all these courses and i think the thing that we have to keep in mind with some of that is censor was no requirement that she undergo training dieting case was an example where the court said we can't really consider not going to consider the fact that by the time the place that was presented with this lease that they undertook to look to to take some courses we're not going to consider that as a  so i don't think we can focus just on the fact that she has some expenditures for the course and i guess in the other thing i point out i think most of us have had kids that go through college and they dropped a course this release was presented to her very shortly after she began most of the senate stand that when you start a class if you drop a class you get a refund so those things could also come into play to to mitigate this notion that she has all of these financial burdens that were impressed upon her by  totally tangled and i'll move anywhere in the world then a testimony about well many companies or some company like you like to train from within one of the testimony years i live in the family home i really can't afford to move i'm going to leave it when because it where i live and i my only expectation of employment is with these one or two utility companies and both of them ninety nine percent of their hiring people have already that have already passed this course that might change your mind change but we don't have that we don't what we're missing here is that last portion with place with the last portion of your hypothetical was that ninety nine percent of the local electric companies require a degree but we don't have that in this case we've got her testifying to made things he said that we've also got mr larkin testifying to the fact that you don't need a degree you don't need free training while some companies prefer it that whole area is murky out there and i don't think that we can we can base  structure so we have two different things that were employed down below the certified question the answer to this what effect will that have either in the negative or the affirmative on  either of those two things my guess is with the summary judgment motion i made that you're really not requesting that the this act as a wolf in sheep's clothing here where this is basically  that type of question really advance things i think it does if i could back up for a second i understand what you're saying about the military you know this isn't the appellate attorney answer right i didn't draft this right i don't have the insight to understand where the artist for thinking when they use it but my understanding from when i looked at this and said where did that language come from was that they were parroting the language of the trial court's order and they were trying to be precise in doing that i think that's disagree with the trial court your position however is that plaintiff may still be able to argue that it's invalid based support additional facts that might be developed or discovery i don't think so but i think that those  perspective for the cases that developed after the i think it's pronounced temple days which focused on this notion of a public service and some of the things that we did try to help predicate sponsor this we jeopardize those cases we took a look at game when you look at those cases there was seemed to be a reluctance to to apply that holy when i look at temple i look at some of the authority of the california case which was temple they relied on a statute that talks about you're going to come to the second horse in the curriculum the practical portion and we're going to tell you now you've got to sign a release i think the court finds that in this position she was under an economic compulsion to sign this release and i think that there is an unfair education and so she was willing to agree with whatever they actually do but she trusts i think that trust while her i'm more curious at this point why your client wants to have this mean i don't see where helps your client i don't know why you're wanting to have this question answered and then secondly how is this case any different than any other case where during the course of the court proceeding rulings are made issue a try and if that's the case what are we doing here that's really firm answering this question and what was the trial court doing striking affirmative yes unless he thought as a matter of valley area where on a hill if you don't get those certainly can't be the only four service providers in our society that have said there has to be more that we really care about violation of you know something he said just a few moments ago that if he clarified this in my mind just a little bit if you were suggesting that the trial court's decision was correct and it were here uncertified question of really isn't this a cart before the horse situation the question has relevance to the court's consideration of the summary judgment motion and those issues now afterwards you're asked having the question posed it's not getting to the trial court guidance in advance of a decision on those two matters it's a after the fact and you comment on that i mean it was not my understanding that that  jury the jury see it but the fact that he didn't and he used them perhaps in our foreword in the context of saying i grant the motion to strike what he was saying is defend it you can't base your defense on this release in other words it's invalid won fourteen of the record mr larkin talks about this notion of her being a girl she was having a conversation with one of the companies and there was some play on words and it was a misunderstanding between the two i don't think that is anything to do with this case i think that's just a comment i don't th that has anything to do with the ruling in this case in really should be considered that the last two things are this when we talk about the expenditure of the timing here of course if we have a case where we do here where there is no requirement by law that says that future lineman you have to have it before you become a lineman all of the stuff that this lady has done is training the course for it may not have the extra enforcement of having to review but it's all considered training so to say that they're that this is all to be washed away i think is i think is an overstatement the year the course for everything if you would have said no i'm not doing that i'm not signing that everything could have been used to constitute strain maybe not to the full extent but it still constitutes train it's not like everything was turned off the spigot she had no opportunity to go forward and the only thing yes or the court opened up the last thing is it is simply this i understand your concern about disputed it and of course you know cyzon i didn't know that this activity was included within that one years of this release but what the court did is they said here's a release here's the accident this is cup and they didn't look at the other arguments and say well with the guy running here's what happened was this anticipated in this and they say yes it was so there is no scope issue of the release i think that's exactly what we have here so if there is a difference as to what he supposedly knew what he appreciated what did i know i of negligence liability in exchange for the person to be allowed to do whatever it is you know where is the truth society goes toward training the first one is this the next progress