successfully selling the company another point is this case was removed in federal court on the basis of a risk and yet the underlying documents themselves are not a and because they didn't receive the summary plan document everything rolled back to what the original offer of the we never received anything in writing until about thirty days after we were terminated no summary plan documents during the forty five day acceptance period and nationally you know when you was even signed and dated document that paid you less than four cents on the dollar you're going to look at it and you're going to go you know i want to see a document that's developed  fraud very late it was too late for us to amend it to the prior case and it was a case where you know this is information that should have been withheld from us that should have been given to us so what we did is we obviously had a second to filed because we had a fraud statute that we were running up against that we were concerned about you had a unique set of individuals in a claims unit or stay claims where the claims in the  he actually claiming i never knew about it yet we presented a letter that showed just indeed he didn't know about it and if you look at the arc opposing counsel made a second attempt to notify the opposing counsel about the second suit and she also attempted to affect settlement so here you have a situation where we have an active set of claims and case number one which is under us state of appeal and provide that waiver release agreement or lose the the rights of that offer so we were faced with that dilemma of what was the subject of that we're looking for a valid agreement with me to understand what our rights are and how can we do that if you don't give us all the really used as a as an opportunity to evade our preempt or a promises that were made to us by the president over division fraudulent activity relative to them leading us to believe that we would not the case not until we received documentation during the discovery period that that showed that actually sterling stock was actively been adamantly involved in and that process in which case we started the fraud process from that point on brief as well he tried to give the flavor of number of issues that are presented to the district court in connection with i think the best way i can describe it is to point out three or four wh itself it is impossible to draw that conclusion from that it doesn't say anything if you just heard negate void clarify or otherwise affect that final judgment recent preemption and just how broad it is that there is definitely a tendency at least on my part to get caught up in the particulars of certain cases and i've always found it helpful to go back to the basic idea what are we trying to achieve substantial just but disagreement of opinion on the jurisdictional issue and that they think it's a good point out to the magistrate that regardless of whether there was subject matter jurisdiction do think my judgment there was correct because there were a couple of claims they had which did not relate to the difference in their life in the first if they also went to commissions and things like that so it was not clearly to rely on those benefits and we did rely on them by continuing to work for ca you know even though we did we we didn't really like the idea of working for that much larger company so the issue was definitely positive it wasn't as clearly articulate client and the benefit plan because the vehicle chose for reasons that are unclear to me was to say that the plan of merger required that result and if they were third party beneficiaries today so there is we discussed the fact that there was a final judgment on the merits and the stipulation for dismissal for in effect that judgment or create some kind of different arrangement or least i do think there's there's an amend our complaint and again for a third time the court said no and now the motion for summary judgment was decided soon thereafter file judgment was entered against these individuals who are still represented by counsel they knew that they had the right to take an appeal indeed they took the first step they filed a notice of appeal and then they  their opportunity to correct that was to come to this court and appeal that original more they chose to forget it i'd also like to make one procedural point and i do think it's partly because they were represented by counsel below on the motion for judgment on the pleadings this argument that somehow the dismissal turned into a release which magically cleeve this issue was never presented because it was not even presented it's one thing i find amazing about his argument about complaining about the amount of time it took place he's been fighting a war of attrition very few doing a very good job at it and the evidence that we finally got in late spring of two thousand and two that's evidence that we should have gotten much sooner to reach numerous games with the provision of evidence to us and i don't think you can allow that type of behavior the other thing is i would take just about anything with your child about this government discussion with a grain all in his opening brief he denied that that he even knew about the second case and i on point here i mean these people haven't done anything to advise other are with a right wrist as written the guy who pushes the broom in the hallway and i who maybe has a third grade education or high school education he has a right to see the documents he has a right to know what he does what he has to do in order to receive the benefits they've done absolutely no arista behavior and all they're doing is they're using arista as a way to shield themselves from being prosecuted for fraud and you know he's trying to claim that we were the first cases about being du and no any of the claims about temperance in the first case were merely that we had this third party beneficiary contract that promised those governments and they just simply withheld the benefits that were in feel the discovery requirements and it created a problem on our side which allowed us to attempt to try to go around it by saying we haven't gotten all the information that we requested but the judge refused to allow us to do so that was the point where we felt we had a right to go back in at that pallet level and say among other things here's a reason why we should be allowed to continue this case because we really haven't got the information for example computer files that they claimed were not available we had been asking why why the amended document was valid and we were never that was never explained to us at any level at any time