i'll be dividing my time with my partner bread word who will speak to you about the folks who for equitable relief that we file i've been pressing a pro ball for twenty five years and i have to say that i have never written a brief like this deceit false testimony things like this this was not my whole practice i who consider myself a bomb thrower but this is not a normal case and as i pointed out in the initial brief the fifty thousand dollar letter of credit and walks out with a six two million dollar judgment against it this case was before this court before and i should go to the panel members here  believe that the decision did either of you think that this was a multi billion dollar case the court riband of this for a trial the letter of credit for one hundred fifty thousand dollars there was no mention of  proof without allegations that's also a direct quote from discourse one nine hundred ninety three decision but i trace that effect two hundred years and it all boils down to a very simple principle both parties must know when advance real issues will be tried events through process that's something that is inherent in every aspect of our judicial system but more than that and they claim to have suffered millions of dollars in damages elwell they argue but the journal where for relief is sufficient to provide notice of claims to lost profits and support they said if you own the supreme court's decision claim actually filed in this case not a trial poor world that because the bank did not engage in discovery it could not call claim surprise that but the court was missing something there duty to put the defendant on notice of the nature of their claim moreover and i think this is also important here koeppen a bank be faulted for not conducting discovery on a claim that was never of course on that's ridiculous really it almost looks like it's a game of hide and seek the plaintiff puts out a complaint and it's up to the defendant to go searching for both the real complaint is that that makes no sense key elements in their case proximate causation which has been in the bank over the duty and breached their duty to provide the be numerous with the amigos confidential profit or loss credit was attached to the complaint and we had the evidence we needed vets i want to make sure that i sort of reserve time for my predator bread or respectfully  e is at all times in compliance with the discovery when you look back over the record you will see a motion to compel we will see any arguments that the bank did not produce any there were documents that were requested by the newmans you will not see a the answer that is this was an issue that was before the court for fifteen years that when it was to my client it was just matter wise who wrote and read to my client i believe both of the parties oh that went to my client i can only occur once but i believe they both are obligated complaint because the current rule that the bank was responsible for conversion of those funds that were to go to my client i submit it was no doubt in anybody's mind that my clients were entitled to payment of the amount of rent that was due them and he was just a matter name in an agreement and and they're a third party intended beneficiary because they are identified by name it's an agreement it might to other individuals to make sure that my clients get paid the rent so my clients where the intended beneficiaries of that agreement and for those reasons i've asked this court to affirm the judgment against people's national bank in favor of my client dan stevens neil thomson  case with regards to what makes conduct in discovery we did ask for the file every piece of paper based on with regards to the loans at issue we've been concerned that they could piece that there was an affection based upon the scope of damages there was no other objections may and no other objection preserved for his appeal very retiring terri newman's testimony the we had sworn testimony from the banks representative but in fact they had produced two is everything which again as i noted earlier you can say that these documents are suddenly relevant post trial but the point is that they're not relevant enough to not it was utilized by an expert as a basis for testimony what message it appears frequently throughout the record on appeal in that case a side did not the bank did not pay for that reason the bases for their appeal should be rejected on the trial court should be a firm and i thank you for your patience