had many things that have happened we appeal quite a number of those my eight minutes would not let me do justice to those i think they're all dealt with in the briefs extensively on both sides there were three things though that i wanted to touch on today equitable tolling the fact that a contract was pled and the fact that the district court applied the incorrect standard the summary judgment standard as opposed to the motion to dismiss standard to certain portions of the district court's analysis when it should not have done so and on the issue of acquittal tolling i actually want to start with a case that this court issued on monday in the and the facts were he waited a little bit over a year from the moment that he found out that his accounts had been frozen and the language when i read it just this morning to be completely frank struck me is as being  if there's going to be equitable tolling they brought up the standard that we've cited here that there has to be reasonable diligence under extraordinary circumstances and the court said that seem to recognize that they will start the clock in other words they will allow for tolling they will start the clock from the point that he had enough information to act on it as it turns out the court learned that the day the accounts were frozen was the same day that he learned about it so there was no need to discuss equitable tolling for the daylight between the actual act and the discovery yes your honor and a little different i agree with that your honor and the court ultimately found that he adding up information within twenty four hours and there is no reason to toll after the fact but i do believe that what the court what the decision stood for as i read it was the proposition that you could have equitable tolling on either side of the queue depending on the facts now in this case we argue for  extraordinary circumstances and we argue for reasonable diligence under those circumstances we recognize that cases are few and far between where the court finds extraordinary circumstances and reasonable diligence but we think we have it here  and mr anderson who was thirty years old at the time had no college education and no financial training wanted to and the pelleas encouraged him to hand over the reins of his entire financial and business life so that he could go on the road pursue his acting career not have to pay any live very frugally enough to pay any attention to his financial affairs we allege that in the intervening twenty years that's exactly what happened he paid no attention to  affairs because of the specific oral contract that they had formed that they would take over his financial life and he didn't make himself aware of and had no reason to that anything was going on we allege that the  time he learned anything was a wry was in two thousand and ten when he walked into a bank to cash a cd found that it had been garnished and started to learn again using the resources that he has not the resources that all of us have the resource that he had to piece together that taxes hadn't been paid for a decade and as a result his his finances had diminished the i r s had garnished the c d and seized other assets none of which had come to him he continued to piece it together he found iris transcripts that showed that the defendants who were his point of contact for all purposes had received repeated notices from the i r s that taxes hadn't been filed so  fault it was not to file the defense were filed prior to two thousand and part two thousand for the st ten years and i don't believe i'm not sure exactly when they stopped i think they stopped being filed in two thousand and six i do an educated man handed over this responsibility those constitute extraordinary circumstances under the facts of this case and that he was recently do it under those same circumstances now before amount of time turning to the contract we absolutely allege the formation of a contract of an oral contract it is correct and in the operative complaint the rd amended complaint which was filed pro se as the three before it works it does not have existence of a contract and the court erred by not finding it i'll point you to docket fifty eight dash one at page eight paragraph twenty three is where we allege the formation of the contract fifty two at twenty four is the transcript of the conversation where the defendants where the police said to the appellant they were going to take five percent fifty eight to a t h twenty six is where he says ok to me that is a that again the transcript is not the contract it was an oral contract but the fact that we have this transcript of a recording made with consent backs up our allegations which are reasonable and which have to be taken at face value that a contract was formed and finally fifty two dollars at page thirty eight  contract absolutely was played in the court erred by not finding it and giving the pro se appellant the the benefit of the doubt there to bring up the to recognize that a contract is there thanks very much believe the court applied the wrong standard because whether it's for summary judgment or for whether to state a claim in order to allege a breach contract for an oral contract you have to allege the specific terms of the oral agreement the date at which it was entered you have to identify the specific contract contractual provision that was breach and the damages that result from that breach and the rd amended complaint doesn't do that what it says is there was an initial letter from november in which mr green said these are the sort of services that we provide and it's that they were fired which is a prospectus and it's in that letter where this service is there provide include taking over all aspects of someone's financial life but there's no acceptance of those terms and then if you look at the transcript that reflects the conversation that happened in december one thousand nine hundred and eighty it is not clear from there the full terms of the contract it appears there's some discussion that mr green's going to take over paying some bill bill payment but there's no discussion beyond that they have back and forth about this types of investments that are available and the different things you should do to take your money but there aren't specific that there are of an agreement there also is in any specifically identify contractual provision that he claims was breached in fact there's nothing in that prospectus but i'm sorry in that oral conversation where it says i'm going to prepare your returns in every single year i'm going to sign them for you and i'm going to file them in fact mr there is there is in the record and this is a document number  number ninety two this is a letter written by mister anderson to the does disciplinary committee as a reply to mr green's response and he says pacifically in there i know i'm responsible for my tax return because it is true that i am responsible for filing my taxes but then he says it is his job to prepare these returns send them out to me wherever i am double checked i receive them and sign them and make sure these taxes get file so when two hundred two thousand and seven rolls around and he hasn't received his two thousand and six tax returns from his accountant and i think this probably predate the filing or let's take it to october if you file late he knows that he doesn't have his tax returns that they haven't been done he has i noticed as of that day as of let's give him april two thousand and seven he then has three years in which he can bring a claim for those terms it happens again the next year and the next year he doesn't have to wait till he finds out in two thousand and ten there is a lien he's on notice before then that the tax of one file so if you look at the totality of the allegations in the complaint including what he allege of contract well it doesn't state the clear terms of the contract if you read the transcript there's a general discussion and it isn't clear and certainly not it isn't clear to me and they don't allege a specific term from that contract so even if you say that's a contract you still have to identify a breach of that contract and damages flowing from that breach and it has to be done in a way that would make that claim timely he has a litany of complaints but he doesn't even if he doesn't associate it a the court could associate that let me come of complaints and i couldn't associate that litany of complaints with this specific contractual provision and certainly nothing that was in a timely period in terms of the the equitable equitable tolling i confess i'm not familiar with the decision that was reached monday but it but it doesn't matter there are no extraordinary circumstances here every case involving ethical tolling has extraordinary circumstances and reasonable diligence the extraordinary circumstances seems to be he doesn't have a college education but there's nothing that says that the statue of attention applies solely to sophisticated businessmen and he's certainly an accomplished again i want to say something that i've said in each of my briefs we allege the formation of an oral contract as alleged in paragraphs twenty three and twenty four of the complaint which you can find the docket fi page twelve the transcript and the prospectus are not the contract nor are they presented as the entirety of the contract we claim that a contract is formed we allege in in our pleading which should be taken at face value mr green states he agreed to be responsible for planning the financial future of mr anderson contract negotiations receipt of all income deposit all earnings drawing checks to pay bills maintaining records all tax we have a transcript and we have we also have letters i believe right i have a letter from her client there is there's a from your from mr there was a letter that preceded that conversation you had they had multiple meetings the one we recorded the one  that was transcribed is the one that's in the record and in fact the transcript cuts off it notes that the track that the recording cut off i don't know were not confined to the complaint in reviewing this week we can look at the transcript and look at whatever the t extensively my brief i think everything yeah everything is in there but if something is not there are some specific task is not in the transcript that doesn't mean it wasn't part of their oral contract we never proposed we never presented it in this again pro se mr anderson never presented the transcript all what the contract was he was presenting it to support his recollection of what had been asked what had been decided but we never said he never said that that transcript was the entirety of that contract thanks very