you have and that's a total time for rebuttal as well as for opening argument and they do not take any visible account of time you wish to say four bottles so if you don't want to be disappointed just keep an eye kind of cutting to the chase question you know its needs were just a matter of ramsey and condo it might be a good deal easier to understand the difficulties that i have currently was shared by the district court in new stages relationship with mexico in cash mainly because that was the only way they could do business and i think oh at the level they were doing business and arizona statute to it or if possible and arizona statute regarding your interest doesn't require nor does the common law require any more than that it doesn't require that you necessarily have a formal relationship it just require the public policy or some other reason is that is a defense to the contract performance it is not on the insurers to asse that he doesn't have a terrible interest when it's the finding of fact formation durak assume that it did and at that time it had the obligation if you want to do that down additional conditions or requirements  regarding whether or not it was please the court my name is leo spell is the one of the lawyers for life insurance company america there are four set of facts that i think the court touched upon some of them that are important i guess understanding two hundred shares of common stock worth two hundred dollars that was owned by a which was the owners of the of the shares was of mexican mining trust number four according to the testimony of  robert g ramsey was the president of the stage and he was also the largest investor in this alleged mexican mining operation but he also conceded mr ramsey did stage i think is the court also touched upon there really is no relationship between to stage an oral rico or a rico was an operation in mexico stock it was held by mr ramsey and that and that is the sum total of the relationship between oral rico with two stage simply that the president to stage who are part of a joint venture there's an affidavit from one patterson who is the chief underwriter answer life insurance company who indicated that had the true facts been told to surrender the application refer to his wagering contract of the law prevents such a contract i think it a good example of that your honor was the rubenstein case that is kind of comparable  to the two hypothetical you pose where in that instance an individual found someone to buy is company for two hundred forty payments of one thousand dollars and  it was you know there was no reasonable expectation that that company was ever going to make a return of that two hundred forty thousand dollars therefore the court found that to be a wagering contract  contract an affirmative defense which is already a burden to carry i don't think so your honor for for a number of reasons i think the first is the statute itself i mean it presupposes that insura are essentially material misrepresentation cases where it says if the insurer has the burden of proof that the coverage doesn't exist in the material the misrepresentation context that's certainly associates and that he was the supervisor f there is nothing in the record that suggests or any testimony there's been no definitions under any people but underwriting was done improperly number one and number two is contained in the amplification we have a right to rely in th because i'm not sure mr rumsey had any legal claim or any claim to the mines in mexico in fact i think it's referred to in the that's really the only i guess fundamental disagreement is to stage or have i guess on as far as the fact is we do not believe that money given by the family members was on behalf of do stage and that's why we pay so much stage i don't think creates a genuine issue of material back because all the evidence that documentarian evidence establishes otherwise establishes that it's made to individuals in their individual behalf because ramsey investing individually it would be a more difficult but you're right that most times could come after someone is deceased but the but important public policy that the courts have recognized is that we can't reward folks who are wagering  speak to forget that people can make oral agreement that they can have handshake and this is a bunch of people who prospects there are bunch of cowboys and doesn't arizona and they do things on a handshake unfortunately for this situation and they've been promised they'll get their money deceptive they haven't lied to anybody they just went about their business and they were trying to get this venture going gold mining is a risky proposition and they put a lot of money in the mortgage their corporation one or recall and he was an employee of or recall an interest holder and or recall and he was the director do state and the policy that employee do stage clarify when you say he was a director he was a member of the board of directors disclosed to the secretary i think that i view well i don't think we have further questions so counsel thank you both for your argument no matter just argued will be submitted