the third case for argument this morning it's the conway family trust against the commodities futures trad my clients filed their arbitration initially with the national futures association they filed within the two years required by the n s a however there is a or their place customer agreement between my clients and dormant trading that provides for a one year statute titian's that's it join appendix page thirty and you'll note that that is page nine of the agreement that paragraphs buried in the in the customer agreement grounds because the issues were simple the fact is will you you need to be aware that this is not a collateral attack on the decision of the national futures association right you're  seeking review of the commission's decision not of the association hands but the commission's decision is based in large part if you read the order attached to the brief that's the subject of this appeal in large part to my client's failure to avail themselves of those are it's based on the fact that your client did not file the reparations proceeding within two years which has nothing to do with the national interests association  it would have been quite simple to file within two years to file in the future association simultaneously and then elect remedies it would have been simple to file the future association immediately after the loss it took a year for the future association to make its decision and then your client would have had an entire year to seek review before the c of t c and the fact that the only reason the c for deciding this case was that the complaint seeking reparations is on time and they rejected the equitable tolling argument that we made and one of the basis for that was my client's inability two years allowed your client could have sought could have initiated reparations proceed in a chose not to so why would there be tolling what prevented the filing of a reparations proceeding during those two years will they could not have obviously filed both with the sea reparations with the c f p c and the n f l you obviously could have done both but you would have needed to elect that's what the rules of the futures association provide and but there's no problem with file within two years absolutely none that i can see and none that your brief gives your brief doesn't explain why you waited almost two years to file before the futures association when you have filed before the c f t c but i think the reason for that as explained by the public policy cited for instance in the stephen vs gold in your case the the entire purpose of a two year statute of limitations and under the know what finra is the number of people in this courtroom who know that may be small it may be just to oppose maybe my colleagues know it's really important when arguing to a general us court to use normal shorten the statue limitations from two years to want to whatever is that as described in the stevens case there is very limited discovery and if recognize you're now back to your collateral attack on the future associations decision you really need to explain why you took more than two years to file before the c f t c and what prevented a timely their options but it's similar like in the burnett case just because someone chooses to file a feel a claim in state court and of turns out to be an off on what claiming state court you m if it turns out to be the improper venue and then it's refiled in federal court district court as a proper venue could involve any federal question jurisdiction the burn the supreme court case says that you should the statue notations at would be to equitably told during the pendency of the state court action and we believe it's analogous that in our case there was the doormen was put on notice by the filing of the and if they arbitration claim and they clearly had  you know my clients could have filed with the c f t c but they did just like any other choice made with theirs alternative forums the policy behind commission the trust has not alleged any grounds there are nine and under case after case many many case in the supreme court this court's decisions in carpenter williams versus s countless decisions in this court no other courts that there must be extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the plaintiffs that stand in the way of timely filing a complaint and there are no such circumstances here as this court held in carpenter extraordinary circumstances is is something that is virtually insurmountable and it certainly doesn't exist here where there's not even any any argument that's made rather what the plaintiff does is the plaintiff i'm sorry conway trust collaterally attacks the decision of the national futures administration dismissing his arbitration claim as untimely that is the sole basis for the equitable tolling argument for the entire appeal in this case and as this court has held submit that the decision was not an adjudication on the merits my clients had no opportunity to clot or really attacked that and if a decision because the limited  situations in which they could have sought for review were not i think you're confusing direct and collateral review you had no opportunity for direct review but you are trying to engage in collateral review right we had well in theory everybody has an opportunity for a direct attack if you if there's corruption fraud except for a under the federal arbitration act but none of those applied here as far as quietly attacking even if you were to say that based on the fact that uniface form was not available because the one year statute applied however it's crystal clear that no matter what the two year sachin limitations applies to a reparations complain